Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan — 1983 DIGILAW 575 (RAJ)

D.L. MEHTA, J.—By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition against the respondents preventing them from issuing the suspension order against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice that the suspension order has been passed and the writ petition was amended. It was prayed that the suspension order (Annexure-AA) dated August 18, 1983 may be set aside. 2. The petitioner has taken number of grounds in his writ petition including the ground of malafides. On behalf of the respondents, a reply to the writ petition was filed on September 26, 1983. It was originally submitted by the respondents that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. However, on an application for amendment being filed, the amendment was allowed and it was submitted by the respondents that it is not admitted that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. It was submitted by the respondents that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Makrana addressed a complaint to the Collector, Nagaur, the copy of the said complaint has been produced by the respondents marked as Ex.R.l. On receipt of the complaint by the Collector, Nagaur, he forwarded it to the State Govt. and the State Govt. ordered on October 21, 1982 to the Collector, Nagaur to have a preliminary enquiry in this regard. Thereafter, the State Govt. issued a reminder in this regard on November 27, 1982. The Collector, Nagaur directed the Deputy District Development Officer, Nagaur to submit a preliminary enquiry report in this regard. The preliminary enquiry report was forwarded by the Collector, Nagaur to the State Govt. on November 19, 1982. On January 1, 1983, the State Govt. issued a show cause notice to the petitioner containing Memorandum of charges and allegations (Ex. R.6 & 6 A). The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within a fortnight. It will not be out of place to mention here that in this very notice, it has been mentioned that the State Govt. desires that the report should be submitted at the earliest and so this notice is being issued. R.6 & 6 A). The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within a fortnight. It will not be out of place to mention here that in this very notice, it has been mentioned that the State Govt. desires that the report should be submitted at the earliest and so this notice is being issued. Shri Shish Ram Ola, Honble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Gramin Vikas, Rajasthan Jaipur passed the order (Ex.R.7) on the Office File and on the basis of the said order, the order of suspension (Ex.R 8.-Annexure-AA) was issued. 3. Originally, the petitioner impleaded respondents No. 3 to 9 as parties. However, the petitioner made a prayer to the Court to delete the names of respondents No. 3 to 9 and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was accepted. The petitioner has taken the stand that there should be a clarity in the mind of those who have been restored with the power under particular Statute or instrument and should exercise the powers vested in them bonafidely, fairly and in a just and proper way. The petitioner has submitted that the institution of the Government is acting malafidely (malice of law and malice of facts) since the inception of Panchayat and he is one of the victims of those who want to exercise their power through the instrument of the Government for their benefit. He has submitted that earlier, he had to file number of writ petitions against the Government. He has given the list of those writ petitions in Ground No. (n) of the writ petition and has tried to show that right from the inception i. e. from the year i955, when the petitioner is said to have started his political carrier, un-abetting actions are taken by the respondents alongwith other persons not to allow him to work smoothly on the elected post. He has also submitted that these writ petitions have been decided in his favour and all the writ petitions related to the Panchayat and Panchayat Samities, He has further submitted that the writ petitions were mostly filed against no confidence motion against the petitioner, suspension and removal of the petitioner from the various posts. In reply to Ground (n) of the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that the past history or previous writ petitions referred to by the petitioner in this sub-para is of no relevance. In reply to Ground (n) of the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that the past history or previous writ petitions referred to by the petitioner in this sub-para is of no relevance. Thus, the respondents have not found it convenient to deny the past history which has been referred to by the petitioner in Ground (n) of the writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Government Advocate. 5. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended with all force at his command that the past history is only relevant as it lays down the foundation for the malafide actions which has been taken against the petitioner on political counts. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Government Advocate has not said anything in addition to what he has submitted in the reply. I am not in a position to accept the contention of Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner in toto. Past history may be relevant factor to show the motive behind any action which has been taken against the petitioner and it may used by aid to the Court in drawing any inference about the conduct of the opposite parties. However, it cannot be said that the past history should be considered sufficient for laying down the foundation of malice in law and malice in fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the orders of the Court, no record is made available to the Court by the respondents. He submits that directions were given by the Court to keep the record present including the proceedings of the Panchayat and Zila Parishad and the record of the State Govt but the Govt. Advocate has failed to comply with the order of the Court. Mr. H N. Calla, learned Government Advocate confronted with the situation submits that the original record was brought by the Officer Incharge and he took away the record. He submits that he has intimated the Officer Incharge to bring the record and the record will be produced before the Court whenever it is received Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the letter(Annexure-2K) dated January 15, 1983 addressed by the petitioner to the Director, Community Development and Panchayat Raj. Govt. He submits that he has intimated the Officer Incharge to bring the record and the record will be produced before the Court whenever it is received Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the letter(Annexure-2K) dated January 15, 1983 addressed by the petitioner to the Director, Community Development and Panchayat Raj. Govt. of Raj , Jaipur whereby the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the Block Development Officer and has submitted that in the past, he has lodged number of complaints against the Block Development Officer but the Govt. is not enquiring into any of the complaints. He has further intimated the Director that the Block Development Officer is exercising wholly practically all the powers of the Panchayat Samiti and is conducting in a way that there is none to lookafter his work. He has also complained to the Director that the Block Development Officer is not taking care of the Pradhan and the elected Pancha-yats. He has given some instances and has submitted to the Director that every act is done on political level and the petitioner is not allowed to perform his duties. He has also referred about some communal fictions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this letter was submitted in the month of January, 1983 and the impugned order was passed in the month of August, 1983. He wants to emphasize the existence of political vendate against the petitioner. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Government Advocate has not addressed at all on this point. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the letter (Annexure-2L) dated March 5, 1983 whereby the Collector addressed to the Director that he requested vide letter dated February 27, 1983 not to convene the meeting looking to the tense situation as there is every likelihood of breach of peace and it will be very difficult for the administration to maintain the law and order. Thereafter, directions were issued that in spite of Chandaliya, the meeting should be convened at Manada. It has also been reported in the letter (Annexure-2L) that during the visit of Honble Chief Minister to Kuchaman City on February 26, 1983, the M.L.As and some Sarpanchas requested the Chief Minister that looking to the tense situation, the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should not be held at Manada. It has also been reported in the letter (Annexure-2L) that during the visit of Honble Chief Minister to Kuchaman City on February 26, 1983, the M.L.As and some Sarpanchas requested the Chief Minister that looking to the tense situation, the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti should not be held at Manada. The M.L.As have also requested to the Chief Minister that during the session of Assembly, no meeting should be held. The Collector has also stated that he contacted the Pradhan and requested him to convene the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti only at Panchayat Samiti Headquarters and not at Panchayat Head-quarters. The petitioner intimated the Collector that it is within his jurisdiction to convene the meeting and he will convene the meeting only wherever he likes and the Collector should not interfere in the matter. The Collector exercies his administrative powers and postponed the meeting which was called on February 28, 1983. Again, the meeting was convened on March 5, 1983, which was also postponed by the Collector. The Collector requested the Stale Govt. that directions should be issued to the Pradhan and the Panchayat Samiti not to convene the meeting at the Panchayat Headquarters but it should be convened only at the Panchayat Samiti Headquarters. Thereafter, on March 5, 1982, the petitioner addressed a letter to the S.H.O., Police Station, Makrana and requested him to intimate whether any of the villages in Panchayat Samiti area are disturbed or not ? He also wanted to know from the S HO. whether village Manada and Chandaliya are disturbed villages or not. He also wanted to know whether Makrana City is a disturbed area or not. The S H.O intimated that none of them is or was a disturbed area and the life is normal there. Mr.M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a reading of letters Annexures 2L & 2M together, it reveals that on the one hand, the Collector has postponed the meeting on the ground that there is every likelihood of breach of peace and on the other hand, the S.H.O. has written that there is no disturbance in any of the villages and the life is normal. Learned counsel of the petitioner has invited my attention to the News-Paper (Daily Prantdoot) (Annexure-3) wherein the interview of the petitioner has been published. Learned counsel of the petitioner has invited my attention to the News-Paper (Daily Prantdoot) (Annexure-3) wherein the interview of the petitioner has been published. The petitioner has alleged that the Collector is putting hinderances in the development of the Panchayat Samiti. Mr. Purohit has further invited my attention to the News-Paper (Daily Prantdoot) (Annexure-4) and has submitted that the apprehension that the petitioner will be suspended has also been published in the News-paper. Learned counsel has further invited my attention to the letter (Annexure-5) dated December 14, 1982 and has submitted that the petitioner wrote to the Minister concerned that the action of the Collector is malafide and an independent enquiry should be conducted into the conduct of the petitioner as well as of the Collector. Mr. Purohit has also invited my attention to Annexure-7 whereby the petitioner has alleged that the Collector is participating in political pilgrims actively and he is bent upon to creat impediment in the development of the Panchayat Samiti. He has also produced Annexures-8,9,10,11,12,13, and 14, and has submitted that confrontation between the petitioner and the administration started more than a year back and from time to time. News-papers have reported that the local administration is acting at the instance of the politicians. It is surprising that a vague reply has been given in paras 20,21, and 22 of the reply to the writ petition and no definite averments have been made controverting these facts. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not necessary to implead the persons against whom the allegations have been made. He has invited my attention to State of Punjab vs. Ramji Lal (1), wherein it was observed : "Where validity of action taken by State Government is challenged on the ground that action was mala fide than to establish mala fide, it is not necessary for the party alleging mala fide of State action to prove that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act." In this background, I will have to consider the case on hand. The validity of the action taken by the State Govt. is challenged on the ground of malice in the instant case. It is not necessary in all cases for the party alleging mala fide of such action to prove that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act. The validity of the action taken by the State Govt. is challenged on the ground of malice in the instant case. It is not necessary in all cases for the party alleging mala fide of such action to prove that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act. The law does not cast any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Govt. is an institution and its work is carried out through its officers. It cannot be expected from a party alleging mala fide to know what matters were placed and considered by the final authority and who acted on behalf of the State Govt. in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Govt. It will be placing intolerable burden in proof of a just claims to require a party alleging mala fides of State action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the authority of the State by taking action for a collateral purpose. In the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the advantage of the case referred to by him as he has specifically mentioned in his writ petition about the mala fide acts of the Officers or the M.L.As or the persons who were responsible in getting the impugned order passed against him. Jt is one thing to say that the petitioner does not know what has happened within the four corners of the Government Secretariat and submits that an inference should be drawn that the authorities have committed mala fide act and the other to say that the particular officer/officers is/are responsible for the mala fide act. In the first part, the petitioner is not in the know of the details of the facts and it can be said that the burden of proof cannot be placed on the petitioner but the same principle will not apply in case the petitioner knows about the details and he makes allegations in the writ petition. All the persons against whom the allegations were made were impleaded as parties. It is very surprising why the petitioner prayed that the names of the persons against whom he has made allegations and who have been impleaded as parties were deleted. All the persons against whom the allegations were made were impleaded as parties. It is very surprising why the petitioner prayed that the names of the persons against whom he has made allegations and who have been impleaded as parties were deleted. The petitioner cannot be allowed to throw hot and cold water at a time. He should have continued the persons to whom he originally alleged as non-petitioner and should have got decided the writ petition so that the true facts might have come on record. However, in the instant case Collector, Nagaur is a party and he has also filed the affidavit and has denied the allegations made against him. It will not be out of place to mention here that no reference has been made in his affidavit about Annexures 2-L and 2-M. It was not possible for him to deny the facts as it was on record and he has addressed a letter to the Director. With this background, I will have to consider the submissions made by the petitioner. 7. There may be some truth that the action of the State Govt. may be mala fide and the inference for the same can be drawn from the past history of the actions taken by the State Government against the petitioner. The possibility of the mala fide action cannot be ruled out specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where the State Government has not come with a specific reply and has failed to produce the record before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959. The relevant part of sec. 40 of the Act reads as under : "Sec. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959. The relevant part of sec. 40 of the Act reads as under : "Sec. 40. Power of Government to remove Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, (or member)—(1) If in the opinion of the State Government, the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member) of a Panchayat Samiti wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the orders of the State Government for the proper working of the Panchayat Samiti or abuses the powers vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or if any disgraceful conduct, the State Government, after giving the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member), as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity for examination and after consulting the Zila Parishad in the matter and taking into consideration its opinion if received within thirty days from the date of the despatch of the communication for such consultation, may by order remove such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member) as the case may be, from office : Provided that the member of a Panchayat Samiti shall be so removable from his office only if he is found to have abused his powers as such, member or to have been guilty of his conduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct as such member." The State Government may suspend any Pradhan against whom an enquiry had been instituted under sec. 40(1) of the aforesaid Act. 8. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure R. 1 is said to be the complaint lodged by the Block Development Officer to the Collector, Nagaur. The complaint is dated December 9, 1982. It seems that a similar complaint might have received by the Honble Minister for Community Development and Panchayat Raj The Honble Minister addressed a letter to the Director requesting him to take necessary action against the petitioner in the matter. The Honble Minister apprised the Collector that some Sarpanch has have requested him that necessary action may be taken against the petitioner under sec.40(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for short the Act herein) Annexure R-3 is the copy of the notice which was served on the petitioner. This notice is dated November 27, 1982. The Honble Minister apprised the Collector that some Sarpanch has have requested him that necessary action may be taken against the petitioner under sec.40(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for short the Act herein) Annexure R-3 is the copy of the notice which was served on the petitioner. This notice is dated November 27, 1982. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the notice (Annexure R-3), it has specifically been mentioned that the State Govt. has desired that the receipt should be submitted at the earliest and as such, the directions were given to the petitioner to send his comments at the earliest. Annexure R-4 is the Enquiry Report of the Deputy District Development Officer, Nagaur. Vide Annexure R-5, the Collector, Nagaur has forwarded the report to the Director. Annexure-R.6 is the notice under s. 40(1) of the Act, by which, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within a fortnight and in failure to do so, the enquiry shall be conducted exparte. Annexure-R6A is the chargesheet which is the foundation for the suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted the reply to the chargesheet (Annexure-2). As far as charge No.l is concerned, the petitioner has submitted the copy of the plan (Annexure-2-A) The charge is that on August 26, 1982, the petitioner directed that the payment be not made as the construction is not according to the approved plan. I have perused the copy of the plan(Annexure-2A). Annexure 2 B is the copy of the report submitted by the Junior Engineer, wherein, he has stated that every construction is not made in accordance with the prescribed map. This letter was addressed by the Junior Engineer to the petitioner on an enquiry being made by him whether the construction is being carried out in accordance with the approved plan or not ? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Junior Engineer has intimated him that there is an approved plan. He has further reported that the work is carried out not in accordance with the approved plan. The Junior Engineer intimated to the Pradhan in writing on August 28, 1982 that the Block Development Officer has directed him that there may be plant or no plan, carry out the work. Mr. He has further reported that the work is carried out not in accordance with the approved plan. The Junior Engineer intimated to the Pradhan in writing on August 28, 1982 that the Block Development Officer has directed him that there may be plant or no plan, carry out the work. Mr. Purohit submits that the Pradhan was justified in directing that no payment should be made if the work is not carried out in accordance with the approved plan. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Government Advocate is not in a position to say about Annexures 2-A and 2-B. It is very surprising that such an allegation has been made against the Pradhan without looking into the facts. Even if, it is assumed that there is no approved plan and the work is carried out without the approved plan then the Pradhan is expected to direct that no payment should be made unless the plan is approved by the competent authority. Can in a democratic country like India, the construction be made without an approved plan at the whims of the Officers? If the Pradhan allows that the payment should be made without approved plan then there will be an allegation that the payment has been made without an approved plan. Mr. Calla, learned Govt. Advocate is not in a position to say anything about this allegation except that the authorities will conduct the enquiry and pass necessary orders. A quarry was made to Mr. Calla, learned Govt. Advocate whether payment can be made without an approved plan. He is not in a position to make any submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation is nonest and the suspension of the petitioner on nonest allegation should be set aside only on this ground. Even if we consider the submission that there may not be an approved plan then also the Pradhan was justified in passing an order that unless the plan is approved, no payment should be made. There is force in the submission made by Mr. Purohit when he submits that allegation is nonest. 9. As far as allegation No. 7 is concerned, it relates to the use of jeep. The petitioner has submitted in his writ petition supported by an affidavit that he has not generally used the jeep. There is force in the submission made by Mr. Purohit when he submits that allegation is nonest. 9. As far as allegation No. 7 is concerned, it relates to the use of jeep. The petitioner has submitted in his writ petition supported by an affidavit that he has not generally used the jeep. He submits that he generally performs Padyatra and the jeep is used by the Officers and he is having no control over it. 1 directed Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Government Advocate to show me the relevant entries of the Log Book to show whether the petitioner has used the jeep. Mr. Calla is not in a position to show whether the petitioner has used the jeep or not? I am not in a position to say anything about the use of the jeep as in spite of the directions, the Log Book has not been produced and the respondents are not in a position to say anything. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Annexure-2G. Para 37 of the Resolution (Annexure-2G) reads as under : ^^37 fodkl vf?kdkjh th us lnu dks voxr djk;k fd lfefr dh thi ds pkjksa Vk;j ,oa V;wc [kjkc gks pqds gS mudk u;k Myokuk vko;d gS D;ksfd vHkh vdky jkgr dk;Z ,oa dbZ vko;d dk;Z tks py jgk gs mudk fujh{k.k djuk vko;d gks tkrk gSA vr% u;s Vk;j o V;wc [kjhnus ,oa eksVh fjisj djokus dh Lohd`fr iznku djkbZ] tkos bl ij lnu us loZ lEefr ls pkj u;s Vk;j ,oa pkj V;wc rFkk vko;d ejEer thi dh djkus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA rRipkr Jh iz?kku egksn; us lar lsokjketh dk vkHkkj izdV fd;k ,oa lnu dh vksj ls /kU;okn nsrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd blh Hkkafr fodkl dk;ksZ esa vki gesa enn nsrs jgSaxs o ekxZ nkZu djrs jgSaxsA^^ He has further invited my attention to the reply(Annexure-2), wherein the petitioner has stated that the facts in regard to the use of jeep can be varified from the Log Book. He has also given the details of the petrol consumed in the reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from that, the petitioner is not at all responsible and a wild allegation has been made against him only to defame him. Mr. He has also given the details of the petrol consumed in the reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from that, the petitioner is not at all responsible and a wild allegation has been made against him only to defame him. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to r.4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Use of Vehicles) Rules, 1963. It reads as under: "4. Controlling Officer: Vehicles provided for the use of a Panchayat Samiti shall be under the control of the Vikas Adhikari who will be Controlling Officer in respect of the vehicles. The Controlling Officer shall be responsible for the proper use, care and maintenance of the vehicles and will regulate the journeys in accordance with these rules." R. 12 provides that the person using the vehicle shall note in the Log Book in his own hand the meter reading at the start and at the completion of each journey. Even if, we go through the charge, there is no allegation that the petitioner has used the vehicle or has misused the vehicle. The charge is that a sum of Rs. 26,939/- has been spent on the jeep. Mr. Purohit submits that as far as the amount spent on the jeep is concerned, it is not correct. The petitioner has given the details of the amount spent on the jeep in his reply (Annexure -2). Mr. Purohit submits that apart from that, the petitioner is not responsible under the Rules and the Block Development Officer who is the Controlling Officer is responsible and if the Government feels, that there is any violation of the Rules, then the Controlling Officer should be taken to the task. As far as the fact that the Controlling Officer is the Block Development Officer, it is not disputed by Mr. H.N. Calla. Mr. H.N. Calla submits that the Government would enquire into the matter and take necessary action at the proper time. This reply is not befitting to the Government. 10. As far as charge No. 8 is concerned, it relates to the non-calling of the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. The charge is that after May 28, 1982, he has not convened the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. Mr. This reply is not befitting to the Government. 10. As far as charge No. 8 is concerned, it relates to the non-calling of the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. The charge is that after May 28, 1982, he has not convened the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. Mr. Purohit has pointed out the falsity of the charge and has invited my attention to the letter (Annexure-2L) and has submitted that the regular meetings were called and the Collector always postponed the meetings. From the perusal of the Annexure-2L. it is clear that the meetings were called in the month of February and March but, however, the Collector postponed the meetings on the ground that there is everylikelihood of breach of peace. Mr. Purohit submits that on the other hand, from the perusal of letter Annexure 2-M it is clear that the S.H.O. has reported that there is no likelihood of breach of peace and every thing was normal. R.3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) reads a under: "3. Meetings of Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads-(1) Every Panchayat Samiti shall meet at least once in every quarter. (2) Every Zila Parishad may meet as often as may be necessary provided that no more than three months shall lapse between one meeting of the Zila Parishad and another." R. 8 of the Rules provides that all the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishads shall be open to the public, provided the presiding member may, in any particular case, direct that the public generally or any particular person shall withdraw. R.21 of the Rules lays down that the presiding member may in case of grave disorder arising in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him. The Rules does not empower the Collector to suspend the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. Letter Annexure-2L merely indicates that the meetings were called and the Collector directed that the meetings should not be convened. The letter Annexure2A further goes to show that there was no likelihood of breach of peace and every thing was normal. Thus, it cannot be said that the allegation of non-calling the meeting is based on good foundation. Letter Annexure-2L merely indicates that the meetings were called and the Collector directed that the meetings should not be convened. The letter Annexure2A further goes to show that there was no likelihood of breach of peace and every thing was normal. Thus, it cannot be said that the allegation of non-calling the meeting is based on good foundation. The petitioner has submitted that he was sleeted on December 8, 1981 and the meetings were convened on 7.1.82, 8.2.82, 22.3.82, 2.11.82 and 3.1.83. However, his orders were flouted by the authorities. He further submitted that the meetings were also convened as referred to in Annexure-2 L but they were not allowed to be held. No reply has been submitted on behalf of the respondents controverting the submission made by the petitioner in Annexure-2. Mr. Purohit submits that this ground is also nonest. 11. As far as allegation No. 2 is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that the Standing Committee could not be constituted for the reasons that after the constitution of the Standing Committees, writ petition was filed and the High Court has granted the stay order, and so the meeting of the Standing Committees could not be convened. He has further submitted that the Block Development Officer has not intimated him about the vacancies and the other matters referred to in the reply (Annexure-2). The petitioner has further submitted that at the request of the Block Development Officer, interviews of the teachers were conducted and the Sarpanchas, Block Development Officer and the Education Extension Officer have participated. 10 persons were selected. However, no one has been appointed so far. The proceedings were called but the Government Advocate has failed to produce the proceedings. In the absence of the record, which is in the possession of the respondents, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any illegality and specially, when no appointment has been made. 12. Charge No. 3 is that the petitioner has refused to sign on the salary bill and pissed an order that C.P.D. Account may not be operated. He has invited my attention to Annexure-2C and has submitted that as early as on March 5, 1983 he issued a letter to the cashier that he has never refused to sign on the cheques. He has invited my attention to Annexure-2C and has submitted that as early as on March 5, 1983 he issued a letter to the cashier that he has never refused to sign on the cheques. The cashier has intimated vide Annexure-2C that while the petitioner was sitting in the Jeep for going out, he prayed him for signing the cheques. He has further submitted that the petitioner declined to sign the cheques, without examining it and proceeded out. Thereafter, Annexure-2-D was issued by the petitioner asking explanation of the Block Development Officer (Vikas Adhikari) that why the cheques were encashed without his signatures. He has further asked the explanation that why payment has been withdrawn without his signatures on cheques and why he has not been consulted. The Vikas Adhkari has intimated vide Annexure-20 to the petitioner that on October 6, l982, the cheques were sent at the residence of the petitioner but he has been intimated that the petitioner had gone to village Phumdi and will return on Oct., 8, 1982, and so, in his absence, the payment was made to the teachers. Assuming that the petitioner declined to sign when he was sitting in the Jeep is correct, even then, the position is that he is not expected to sign while he is proceeding in a jeep without verification of the facts. The authorities should put up the papers and the cheques according to the procedure. Before signing the cheques, it is expeeted fro n the Pradhan that he shall verify that the payments are made to the original person and the amount withdrawn for the payment is genuine and as per Rules and Sanctions. It is not expected that the Pradhan should always be at his own residence and should not move to the villages and if for one or two days, he takes round of his constituency, it does not mean that he does anything wrong which may lead to the position as reported by the S.D.O. Pradhan has suspected that there may be an embezzlement as during his inspection, he found that one teacher viz., Pabudan Singh was found absent in the school. It was reported to him by some villages that he does not attend the School regularly. An enquiry was initiated against him. It was reported to him by some villages that he does not attend the School regularly. An enquiry was initiated against him. Some instances have also been given by the petitioner about some other teachers and in such circumstances, the Pradhan was justified in not putting his signatures on the cheques without erification. Mr. Purohit has invited my attention to Annexure-2K and has submitted that the Pradhan requested the Director on January 15, 1983 that payments are not made to the teachers according to the Rules and the teachers who are working properly are not paid the salary in time. Mr. Purohit submits that this letter remained unattended. He further submits that this ground is nonest. 13. As far as charge No.6 relating to the payment to the workers working in the famine is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the letters Annexures 21 and 2J and has submitted that the petitioner requested the Collector, Nagaur for the payment to the labours. He has also invited my attention to the Resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Annexure-2H), in which, a request was made that the payment should be made to the labours without interference of the Revenue agencies who are not coming for the verification at the time of the payment. Mr. Purohit submits that charge No.6 is frivolous and nonest. He further submits that under r.30 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959), the Vikash Adhikari is the Controlling Authority as far as the expenditures are concerned and he is only the disbursing authority. He submits that under r. 30 of the Rules of 1959, a duty has been cast on the Vikas Adhikari to see that not only the total expenditure is kept within the limits of authorised appropriation, but also that the funds allotted are expended in the interest and service of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad and upon objects for which provision has been made. He further submits that in order to exercise proper control, the Vikas Adhikari should keep himself closely acquainted with the progress of the expenditures, commitments and liabilities incurred but not paid. He has further invited my attention to r.36 of the aforesaid Rules and has submitted that the funds placed at the disposal of a Panchayat Samiti by the State Govt. He has further invited my attention to r.36 of the aforesaid Rules and has submitted that the funds placed at the disposal of a Panchayat Samiti by the State Govt. by way of grant for schemes under any head may be utilised for any of the approved schemes under that head laid down in the Departmental Memoranda provided that (a) that fund shall not be diverted from any scheme specifically indicated by the State Government in this behalf nor shall the pattern of such scheme be altered without the approval of the State Government, and (b) no continuing schemes shall be left on in incomplete State, without such approval. He further submits that under r.40 of the Rules of 1959, the Officers of the State departments concerned shall have the right of inspection of works of the Panchayat Samitis for which grant-in-aid is given as also the records connected therewith and to give a such technical assistance and directions for the execution of schemes as are found necessary and the Panchayat Samitis shall abide by those instructions. He submits that no where in the Rules, it has been provided that the payments should be made through the Revenue agencies. R.70 of the Rules of 1959 deals with Pay Orders, and it reads as under: "70 Pay Orders.—All pay orders for money drawn on bills out of the Fund shall be signed by the Vikas Adhikari/Secretary. After cash has been drawn on these bills, officers of the institutions or schemes who are authorised to incur expenditure will arrange payment, attest the fact of payment on the voucher and maintain a properly vouched account of such payments in their offices." Mr. Purohit submits that pay orders for money drawn on bills out of the fund is issued by the Vikas Adhikari and the Pradhan does not come into the picture at all. He further submits that the work has been carried out by the Panchayat Samiti and a reading of Rules 36, 40 and 70 of the Rules of 1959, together will show that the presence of the Revenue Agencies is not at all necessary. Even if it is assumed that the presence of the Revenue Agencies was necessary, it was for the Vikas Adhikari not to make the payment. There is no allegation that the petitioner has made payment or has in any way issued directions. Mr. Even if it is assumed that the presence of the Revenue Agencies was necessary, it was for the Vikas Adhikari not to make the payment. There is no allegation that the petitioner has made payment or has in any way issued directions. Mr. Purohit submits that under R. 100 of the Rules of 1959, it is the responsibility of the Vikas Adhikari to see that all the officers who receive or pay money on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishads maintain proper accounts thereof in such manner that information in regard to all receipts and expenditure could be deduced therefrom as laid down in the Act. He further submits that under R. 101 of the Rules of 1959, whenever any loss of money revenue or receipt, stamps, stores or other property held by or on behalf of the fund caused by defalcation of fraud is discovered, the Vikas Adhikari/ Secretary shall make a report to the Controlling Authority appointed by the Government under the Local Fund Audit Act, 1954 and a copy thereof shall be sent to the Examiner. No report was submitted by the authority to the Controlling Authority so far and no case of defalcation, or fraud is discovered. He submits that the petitioner is not at all responsible in any way and the charge is novest. 14. As far as charge No. 5 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to issue a chargesheet is not offence and the charge-sheet issued to the Vikas Adhikari by the Pradhan is correct. Mr. Purohit submits that s.40(1) of the Act provides that there should be a wilful omission or refusal to carry out the orders of the State Government for the proper working of the Panchayat Samiti. He further submits that in any of the charges, no wilful omission has been pointed out. He further submits that s. 40(1) of the Act further provides that there should be abuses of the powers vested in the Pradhan or he is found to be guilty of misconduct. There is no allegation that the petitioner has abused any powers vested in him or he has exercised any powers which can be said to be not vested in him. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner is relating to the powers vested in the Vikas Adhikari/Block Development Officer. There is no case of misconduct or disgraceful conduct. Mr. There is no allegation that the petitioner has abused any powers vested in him or he has exercised any powers which can be said to be not vested in him. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner is relating to the powers vested in the Vikas Adhikari/Block Development Officer. There is no case of misconduct or disgraceful conduct. Mr. Purohit submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the acts or omissions if any of the Block Development Officer. Mr. Purohit submits that the State Government has a power under s. 40(2) of the Act to suspend a Pradhan against whom an enquiry had been started under sub-sec. (1) of s. 40 of the Act. The power has to be exercised judiciously but not malafide. R 3. of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Removal of Pradhan & Up-Pradhan) Rules, 1960 provides that before taking any action under sub-s. (1) of s.40 of the Act. whether on its own motion or upon any complaint the State Government may ask the Collector to make a preliminary enquiry and to send his report to the State Government. Mr. Purohit submits that the preliminary enquiry has not been conducted by the Collector but it has been conducted by the Deputy Development Officer and the Collector has only endorsed the report. He has further invited my attention to r. 4 of the aforesaid Rules and has submitted that the State Government should frame definite charges and shall communicate them in writing to the Pradhan together with such details as may be deemed sufficient for him to understand the nature thereof and require him to submit within such time as may be specified a written statement indicating whether he admits the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence if any he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person. He further submits that no defi-nits charges have been framed against the petitioner and the charges framed against him are vague. He submits that the petitioner has also been prejudiced as no proper chargesheet has been issued to him. Mr. He further submits that no defi-nits charges have been framed against the petitioner and the charges framed against him are vague. He submits that the petitioner has also been prejudiced as no proper chargesheet has been issued to him. Mr. Purohit has also invited my attention to rr.5 and 6 of the aforesaid Rules and has submitted that the power to suspend the delinquent Pradhan is generally used when the authority comes to the conclusion that by permitting the delinquent officer in his office there is likelihood that such an officer may misuse his office or when there is an apprehension that his continuance in the Office is likely to create impediment in the conduct of the enquiry ordered against him. Mr. Purohit submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner has misused is Office for his personal benefit even in the charges levelled against him and so, the question of likelihood that the petitioner may misuse his Office does not arise at all. There is also no allegation that the continuance of the petitioner in his Office is likely to create impediment in the conduct of the enquiry ordered against him. Mr. Purohit has submitted that the complaint against the petitioner was lodged on October 9, 1982 vide Annexure-RI and the petitioner was served with a notice (Annex-ure-1) dated January 1, 1983. He submits that the impugned order was passed on August 18, 1983 vide Annexure-AA. He further submits that the impugned order is bad in law as it has not been passed immediately after initiating the enquiry against the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention the Thanaram vs. State of Rajasthan (2), wherein it was observed : "In a State wedded to democracy rule of law acts as a constant, diterr-ant for temptation against the misuse of the power conferred by the Legislature on the Govt. which functions as a trustee to safe-guard the rights and the interests of the people. The expression "rule of law" primarily implies that the life, liberty, property and reputation of the people shall not be damaged or impaired except under the authority of the law, that is to say, for a purpose stated in the law and the manner so stated. Rule of law is not a mere technical rule just requiring compliance with statute. It is much more, it is a principle. Rule of law is not a mere technical rule just requiring compliance with statute. It is much more, it is a principle. Thus, if the law laid down by the Parliament itself authorises that the Government or any official thereof may act in a manner stated therein, then he has not only to follow the procedure laid down in the statute but has to follow the purpose for which such a law has been enacted by the legislature. An act may be perfactly legal and yet it may be contrary to rule of law. There is no doubt that the administration always exercises some degree of discretion, but the area of discretion left with the administrator should be deligated by certain clear-cut norms so as to exclude the exercise of arbitrary power. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the motive for passing the impugned order was wholly extraneous, the Court should not feel helpless to redress the wrong done to the person injured by such an order, otherwise if the Court refuses on technical grounds to extend protection to the aggrieved person, then the whole concept of the rule of law will be rendered nugatory. The Court shall be failing in the discharge of its pious duty if like a silent spectator it allows the use of power by an authority for a purpose different from the one for which such a power is conferred by the Legislature on the authority. In this case, the power to suspend the delinquent Pradhan has been used by the Government for an ulterior motive. The power which has been vested in the Government to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the functioning of the Panchayat Samitis cannot be allowed to be degenerated into a medium for taking revenge from the political adversaries." In the case in hand, looking to the past history together with the conduct of the Government during the pendency of the writ petition in not producing the material facts before the Court creates a doubt about the bonafides. The power which has been vested in the Government to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the functioning of the Panchayat Samiti cannot be allowed to be degenerated into a medium for taking revenge. From the totality of these circumstances, it seems that the power under sub. s. (1) of S. 40 of the Act might have been used for extraneous reasons. From the totality of these circumstances, it seems that the power under sub. s. (1) of S. 40 of the Act might have been used for extraneous reasons. The matter is hanging for a period of more than a year. Even the chargesheet was issued on January 1, 1983, the Government passed the order of suspension of the petitioner on August, 18, 1983 The petitioner had the apprehension that he may be suspended and he has issued for pamphlets. Even after the passing of the suspension order, more than four months have elapsed and if the Government cannot conduct the enquiry, the elected Head should not be allowed to remain out of his Office specially when he has succeeded in raising dousts in the mind of the court that some ulterior motives are there in passing the impugned order. Mr. Purohit has further invited my attention to Bajrang Lal vs. State (3) wherein it was observed : "After a preliminary report has been submitted and a prima facie case has been made out against the delinqunt elected officer, the State Government after considering the merits of the case, is required to decide whether a chargesheet is to be served on the holder of the elective office or not and if it finds that prima facie case has been established and further considers that his continuance in office would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the Panchayat fund or the working of the Panchayat, the Government should be left free to exercise its control and if the case warrants a temporary removal such an incumbent, then, after careful scrutiny of the preliminary report submitted before it, to suspend him. The State Government is no doubt not expected to act malanfide in passing the order of suspension and in a given case, if it is found that it acted with mala fide intention, the action can well be struck down. There is sufficient guideline provided in the section itself. The State Govt. is required to keep in view the nature of the accusation as well as the prima facie case made out and the purpose for which the suspension order is to be passed. Thus, S. 17 (4A) of the Act does not confer unregulated, unbriddled and unchannelised power on the State Govt. The State Govt. is required to keep in view the nature of the accusation as well as the prima facie case made out and the purpose for which the suspension order is to be passed. Thus, S. 17 (4A) of the Act does not confer unregulated, unbriddled and unchannelised power on the State Govt. and is consequently not unconstitutional " In Biram Chand vs. State of U.P. (4) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "It is well settled that in a case of preventive detention the grounds must be clear and definite to enable the detenue to make an effective representation to the Government to induce the authorities to take a view in his favour The detenue must have a real and effective opportunity to make his represen tation to establish his innocence". This case relates to the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and it cannot be applied with rigur in the instant case. However, the principles will be the guiding factor and if the Court comes to the conclusion that there are number of non-est grounds and the order is also not for the purpose for which s. 40 of the Act has been enacted, then the Court should set aside the impugned order. 16. Mr. Purohit submits that discretionary power has been exercised for an unauthorised purpose, and it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good faith or in bad faith. It is well settled that if people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law, they have not exercised their discretion. It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another. Mr. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another. Mr. Purohit wants to emphasize that the nonest grounds have been taken into consideration and for this reason, the order is bad and the authorities have not exercised the discretion vested in them according to law and so, the impugned order should be set aside. 17. On the other hand, Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Govt. Advocate opposing the writ petition has invited my attention to State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhu-shan (5). This is a case under Article 311 of the Constitution. Their lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the point whether the High Court was justified in pissing the order that the findings of two of the heads under charge No. 1 could not be sustained because in arriving at the finding the Tribunal had warranted the rules of natural justice. It was further held that the reasons which induce the punishing authority, if there has been an enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable nor is the penalty open to review by the Court. It was also held that the High Court was justified that if some of all the findings of the Tribunal were not assailable, the order of the Governor on whose powers by the rules no restrictions in determining the appropriate punish-ment are placed was final and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty. It is not a case of punishment. Apart from that, State of Orissas case will not apply in the instant case as nonest grounds have not been considered in that case. 18. Mr. Calla has further referred the case of Railway Board, New Delhi vs. N. Singh (6), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : It was open to the General Manager to do so. He was not bound by the conclusions reached by the enquiry committee see Union of India vs. H C. Goel (1964)4 SCR-718=( AIR 1964 SC 364 ). He was not bound by the conclusions reached by the enquiry committee see Union of India vs. H C. Goel (1964)4 SCR-718=( AIR 1964 SC 364 ). This is not a case where it can be said that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is not supported by any evidence nor it can be said that no reosonable person could have reached such a finding. Hence the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Authority should prevail and the High Court in the exercise of its certiorary jurisdiction could not have interferred with its conclusion, see Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, (1964) 5 SCR-64=(AIR 1964 SC-477)." In the instant case, the question remains that whether the conclusions arrived at by the authorities should have been reached by a reasonable man. 1 find that such conclusions cannot be reached by a reasonable man. 19. Mr. Calla, learned Govt. Advocate has further cited the case of State of U. P. vs. O. P. Gupta (7). I have read the decision of State of U. P.s case (supra). State of U.P.s case (supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 20. Mr. Calla, learned Govt. Advocate has also referred the cases of Union of India vs Sardar Bahadur (8) and Ramdhyan Singh vs. State of Bihar (9). These cases are having no bearing on the questions involved in the instant case. 21. It is an admitted position that the Collector, Nagaur, Pradhan (petitioner) and the Block Development Officer were not on good terms. The petitioner had already made complaints against these authorities to the Commissioner, Community Development and Panchayat Raj and the Chief Secretary vide Annexure 2-E. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Annexure 2k dated January 15, 1983, whereby the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the Block Development Officer to the Director, Community Development and Panchayat Raj. Jaipur regarding non-payment of the salaries to the teachers and other matters. Jaipur regarding non-payment of the salaries to the teachers and other matters. Thus, the past history goes to show that the Pradhan and the Block Development Officer were not on good terms and there was an alleged impediment in the working of the Panchayat Samiti, which was created by the Block Development Officer and the same was reported to the authorities by the Pradhan from time time to but the authorities have either not taken any steps or if the steps have been taken, it has not been brought to the notice of the Court. The letters Annexure 2-L & 2-M also create a suspicion in the mind of the court. I also failed to understand that why the respondents have not controverted the facts referred to in Annexures 3,4,5 and & The matter is pending for the last one year and if the democratic Head of the Panchayat Samiti is not allowed to function for such petty enquiries then the whole system of democracy will cripple down and the elected Heads will be at the mercy of those who are in power. Applying the principles laid down in Thanarams case, (supra) it can be said that an inordinate delay in the conclusion of the enquiry which is pending against the petitioner creates a suspicion in the mind of the Court that the authorities wants to delay the matter. When the matter is pending with the Govt. for a period of about one year, it was the duty of the Govt. to decide the matter immediately specially when the Govt. has suspended the Pradhan and the elected Head is out of his Office. It should be borne in mind that there are elected Heads sitting at Centre, the State and at the level of local bodies and they are representatives of the people in character and no one should be allowed to create an impediment in their working. The foundation of the democracy is based on the rural structure and the working of the local bodies. If the democratic institution like the local bodies working at grass root level are not given free hand in their working, it cannot be expected that they will act as watch dog. Any impediment in the working of the local bodies will create an hurdle in the implementation of development programme. 22. If the democratic institution like the local bodies working at grass root level are not given free hand in their working, it cannot be expected that they will act as watch dog. Any impediment in the working of the local bodies will create an hurdle in the implementation of development programme. 22. Court should act in a way that the local bodies prosper and there is least interference in the working of the local bodies At the same time, the Government or its officers should see that the funds of the local bodies are not misused by any of its officers including the elected Heads. There should be freedom in the planning or in the working of the local bodies but at the same time, there should be a check to verify that the amount which is utilised is properly utilised. Those who are doing some work are likely to commit some errors. The licence of not committing the mistake can only be given to those who are sitting idle. So every type of error cannot be looked into with suspicion and every error cannot be the ground of taking action or penalising the person who has done something for the society with best intention. It is the graveness of the error and specially the mala fide in doing the act which should be the cause for taking the action against the elected Head. Putting of an impediment in the working of elected Heads of the local bodies will cripple down the whole Foundation of the democracy and the democracy can only survive if there is a strong local body who can act as a watch dog not only on the functioning of the bureaucrates but also on the functioning of those elected representatives who are sitting at the Centre or at the State level. The contention of Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been elected and he is facing the impediment in the working of the Panchayat Samiti. 23. Looking to the past history, the delay in deciding the enquiry and looking to the fact that there is every possibility that number of grounds alleged against the petitioner may be nonest, I am inclined to take my views in favour of the petitioner. 23. Looking to the past history, the delay in deciding the enquiry and looking to the fact that there is every possibility that number of grounds alleged against the petitioner may be nonest, I am inclined to take my views in favour of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the enquiry is pending for a petty long time and the petitioner has not been suspended before August 19,1983. Nothing has been brought on record to show what has happened during the interval of about eight months. Whether the petitioner has done something wrong which necessitiated the Government to pass his suspension order. As the Government has not passed the order within eight months after getting the preliminary report and the reply of the petitioner then after about 8 months what was the reason in passing the suspension order is not under-standable Apart from that the requirement of sec. 40(1) of the Act is that the Pradhan wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the orders of the State Government for the proper working of the Panchayat Samiti. In the instant case, it has not been pointed out that the Pradhan has flouted any orders of the State Government and has thereby wilfully ommitted or refused to carry out the orders of the State Govt. for the proper working of the Panchayat Samiti. Thus, this ingredient does not apply in the instant case in its totality. The second ingredient is that the Pradhan abuses the powers vested in him. No case has been made out even in the chargesheet that the petitioner has abused any powers vested in him. It was necessary for the Government to point out that this was the particular power vested in the petitioner and the petitioner has misused this power. The vague alligations will not suffice. If the Block Development Officer has acted beyond his control or has also flouted any orders of the Govt. then the petitioner cannot be held liable. It was the duty of the Govt. to take necessary action against the Block Development Officer if he has not acted according to law or he has not performed his duties as required under the Rules. The third ingredient is that the Pradhan is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or if any disgraceful conduct. to take necessary action against the Block Development Officer if he has not acted according to law or he has not performed his duties as required under the Rules. The third ingredient is that the Pradhan is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or if any disgraceful conduct. The word misconduct lias to be construed in a way which may not affect the reputation of those who are elected persons. Any mud can be thrown against an elected person, may be by rival or may be by those who are not getting the things done according to their whims. The misconduct has to be construed in a way that the powers vested in the Pradhan have been misused by him for his personal benefit or for the beneficial purpose of the others. There may be discretionary powers with the Pradhan and the elected Head is always expected to exercies his discretion in favour of those who have voted him and in doing so, there is nothing wrong. It cannot be expected that the elected Head will neglect his constituency or the voters. It is the requirement of the democracy that the elected Head should go to the voters and should serve them. Apart from that, when we talk that the adminstration should move towards the villages then it should be applied with full force. The Pradhan was not wrong when he was organising the meeting at the Panchayat Head quarters. A perusal of the Annexures 2L and 3-M shows that there is an inconsistency in the stand taken by the District Magistrate and the police authorities when the District Magistrate says that by organising the meeting, there is every possibility of breach of peace and on the other hand, the Police authorities says that there is no likelihood of any breach of peace. It seems that the police authorities may be better informant than the Collector and if the police authorities were better informant then the Pradhan was justified in holding the meeting where he wants to held and the Collector was not justified in passing the order Annexure 2-L. The publications made by the Pradhan against the Collector might be one of the reasons which might have there and it was the duty of the Government to appoint a person against whom the Pradhan has no grievance at all. It is an admitted position that the struggle was going on between the authorities, viz., Block Development Officer and the Collector on the one side, the and Pradhan on the other side and to ask the Collector to conduct the inquiry of the Pradhan with whom he has no good terms and against whom, the Pradhan had lodged number of complaints will show that the inquiry will not be a fair enquiry and it is liable to be vitiated even this very ground. 24. Taking the conspectus picture of the facts that an inordinate delay has taken place in the matter of enquiry, that after the enquiry, the Government as set over the papers for a petty long time and no reasons have been shown why Pradhan has been suspended and that what was the urgency in suspending the Pradhan after a petty long time of about 8 months, I accept the writ petition, set aside the order Annexure-AA dated August 18, 1983 passed by the State Government against the petitioner. However, the Government, if it desires may hold an enquiry against the petitioner. 25. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.