Judgment J.R. Chopra, J.-These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of these two writ petitions are as under: (1) Facts of Jan Mohd.’s case. The case of the petitioner Jan Mohd. is that in the general elections of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, 30 members were elected and out of them, 15 belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party and the remaining 15 belongs to Congress-I party and in the election of Chairman of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, in the toss, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Board. According to him, on account of political reasons, members of the Bhartiya Janta Party, which is presently ruling in the State, always tried to remove the petitioner from the Chairmanship. He has submitted that recently on the complaints of the members of the ruling party in the State about the affairs of the Board, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur and in that enquiry, he has submitted that he is nowhere involved in any of the works executed, and every work was executed after the approval of the Board. It has been submitted that the integrity of the petitioner is beyond doubt. According to the petitioner, as the members of the ruling party were determined to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman. Municipal Board, Sardarshahar for ulterior motive, they persuaded the State Govt. to suspend the petitioner from the post of Chairman because their eiforts failed to remove him. However, the petitioner was served with a notice (Annexure-1) and the statement of allegations (Annexure-2) and by order (Annexure-3), he has been suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. It has been contended that the suspension of an elected member cannot be equated with the suspension of a Govt. servant inasmuch as the suspension of an elected member amounts to his temporary removal and, therefore, all sorts of precautions should be taken before suspending an elected member. The temporary removal of an elected member without aifording him an opportunity of being heard is violative of the principles of natural justice. servant inasmuch as the suspension of an elected member amounts to his temporary removal and, therefore, all sorts of precautions should be taken before suspending an elected member. The temporary removal of an elected member without aifording him an opportunity of being heard is violative of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the suspension order has not been served on petitioner as yet and he obtained a copy of it from the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations levelled against him under Section 63 of the Act do not in any manner amount to flagrant abuse of his position and he is neither guilty of misconduct in discharging his duties nor is he guilty of disgraceful misconduct. All these allegations are baseless. The entire works were executed by unanimous resolution of the Board and the Chairman has not power to override the Board. The payment of the amount over and above Rs. 10,000/-has been contributed by the Doners. The Municipality has not made that payment. As regards appointments of Clerks, the Executive Officer is competent to do so and the Chairman is not at all involved in that matter. For removal of encroachments, the Executive Officer of the Board is the competent authority under Section 203 of the Act. He has submitted that it is wrong to contend that on 4-10-1991, when Truck No. RRM 2227, which was going without paying octroi duty, was raided by the Nakedar, he asked the Nakedar not to take action against the owner of that truck. According to him, the truck was ordered to be released after recovering eleven-times penalty. As regards the allegations of purchasing of pipes, it has been submitted that the pipes were never purchased and no payment against purchase of pipes was made. The allegation regarding purpose of Patties of 4 lakhs is also wrong as this fund for purchasing of patties was released by the Collector, Chum and the Patties were purchased after obtaining the sanction of the Collector and the State Govt. The payment regarding construction of drainage was made by the Executive Officer. According to the petitioner, his suspension is mala fide and it has not been made after obtaining and considering his explanation. The payment regarding construction of drainage was made by the Executive Officer. According to the petitioner, his suspension is mala fide and it has not been made after obtaining and considering his explanation. Thus, the suspension of the petitioner is arbitrary and, therefore, Section 63(4) of the Act be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution. 5. It hasbeen contended that no proceedings can be said to have been commenced against the petitioner as per Section 63 of the Act, However, if it is held that they have commenced then the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act are ultra vires of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The suspension order has been passed for an oblique motive and ulterior considerations. According to the petitioner, the suspension order has penal consequences inasmuch as if the aforesaid order stands, the petitioner will not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the Board by virtue of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act and it will shatter his image in the public at large. It has been alleged that Shri Bhanwarlal Sharma, Minister of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project has won the assembly elections from the Sardarshahar Constituency and he belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party (ruling party in the State) and is keenly interested in his removal. He has already threatened the petitioner that he will remove him from the post of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. According to the petitioner, irregularities in the work cannot be construed as misconduct. He has, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs: .(i) that by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, Section 63(4) of the Act be struck down and declared void; .(ii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order Annexure-3 dated 10-1-1992 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (iii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction non-petitioners may be directed to produce resolution of the Board and the enquiry report; .(iv) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction non-petitioners may be restrained from containing (sic) any enquiry in respect of allegations and Annex.s-1 and 2 may be quashed and set aside; .(v) Pending the petition, if any order is passed, prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, same may be quashed and set aside. .(vi) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed. (vii) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. Along with this writ petition, certain Annexures have been filed. The petitioner has also filed his own additional affidavit as also the affidavits of other members of the Board to show that all the works have been executed in pursuance of the unanimous resolution of the Board. 6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which, it has been claimed that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, in the year 1990. It has been alleged that Shri Ishwar Ram died on 28-2-199 1 and thereafter, no notice from any person was received for no confidence motion as per the record. One Shri Ashok Picha addressed a complaint to the Minister for Local Self Government Department, and on that complaint, Shri Atma Prakash Pareekh was ordered to make preliminary enquiry. He made preliminary enquiry and in that enquiry, the petitioner has participated and thereafter, the enquiry report has been submitted on 23-12-199 1. The result of that enquiry was that the amount of certain works which were sanctioned for construction of Nalis in the Kachhi Bastis were utilised for construction of Nalis in Wards No s. 15,18,27 ad 30 which are not Kacchi Bastis. The work estimates and technical sanctions were obtained for certain works ranging between Rs. 13,000/-to Rs. 29,000/-and for those works tenders were not invited and the works were bifurcated so that estimates of the works may be reduced to Rs. 10,000/-or less. Such type of 9 specific cases were noticed by the Enquiry Officer and in those cases, the entire work was got executed from a favourite Contractor Shri Farooq Khokhar. Even for purchase of stone Pattis, tenders were invited. No approval of the technical Engineer was obtained. Shri Farooq Khokhar did not file any tender but still, negotiations were undertaken and he was ordered to supply the stone Patties. Certain promotions have been made in contravention of the orders of the State Govt. So much so, the State Govt. Even for purchase of stone Pattis, tenders were invited. No approval of the technical Engineer was obtained. Shri Farooq Khokhar did not file any tender but still, negotiations were undertaken and he was ordered to supply the stone Patties. Certain promotions have been made in contravention of the orders of the State Govt. So much so, the State Govt. gave an undertaking before the Court that no appointment or promotion will be made but in contravention of that undertaking, promotions were given and thereby the Municipal Board has been put to a loss of Rs. 54,168/-from January to October, 1991. The petitioner did not take any interest in removal of the encroachments. Certain cases were directed by the Nakedars wherein the octroi duty was evaded and in those cases, chits were issued by the petitioner to release those goods. When such type of matters were high lighted in the news papers, 11 times of the octroiduty was recovered as penalty. In one case, the evasion of octroi duty was noticed by the Nakedar on 3rd, the chit was issued by the petitioner on 4th and the penalty was ordered and recovered on 5th. Thus, according to the respondents, there was a prima facie case against the petitioner to proceed against him under Section 63 of the Act. 7. According to the respondents, in such matters, no pre-decisionat hearing is essential. The petitioner himself has participated in the Enquiry and has brought all the facts to the notice of the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been taken by surprise. After considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, he has been suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and a chargesheet has been issued against him, as to why charges be not referred to a Judicial Officer. In reply to that chargesheet, he may submit any explanation, which he likes and the competent authority may drop the proceedings, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. When the enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act, it will be deemed that the proceedings have been initiated against him. According to the respondents, the proceedings have commenced against the petitioner from the date, when show cause notice was issued to him as regards charges levelled against him. When the enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act, it will be deemed that the proceedings have been initiated against him. According to the respondents, the proceedings have commenced against the petitioner from the date, when show cause notice was issued to him as regards charges levelled against him. The petitioner can submit his explanation before the competent authority, who is already seized of the matter. Along with the reply to the writ petition, the preliminary enquiry report has also been filed. 8. It has been contended by the respondents that as per Section 63(4) of the Act, the suspension can be ordered at the commencement of the proceedings and when the competent authority had applied its mind on the preliminary enquiry report and came to the conclusion that action under Section 63 of the Act has to be initiated against the petitioner then it would mean that the proceedings have commenced on the date when he ordered for the issuance of a show cause notice accompanied by the statement of allegations against the petitioner. Thus, it has been claimed that no pre-decisional hearing is necessary in such matters and the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act are absolutely valid. 9. A rejoinder to the reply has been filed wherein the averments made in the writ petition have been reiterated. A reply to the rejoinder has also been filed wherein the facts narrated in reply to the writ petition have been reiterated. (2) Facts of Murlidhar Sharma’s case: The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Council, Chum on 28-1-1991, after Shri Bahar was removed from the Office of Chairman on account of passing of a no confidence motion against him. It is alleged that the first no confidence motion was moved against him on 31-8-1991 and the second no confidence motion was moved against him on 22-9-199 1 but the Collector did not convene any meeting. The third no confidence motion was moved against him on 15-10-199 1 and when no meeting was convened by the Collector, a writ petition was filed by one Shri Sattar Khan seeking direction to convene the meeting and this Court vide its order dated 4-11-199 1 directed the Collector, Chum to convene the meeting. The third no confidence motion was moved against him on 15-10-199 1 and when no meeting was convened by the Collector, a writ petition was filed by one Shri Sattar Khan seeking direction to convene the meeting and this Court vide its order dated 4-11-199 1 directed the Collector, Chum to convene the meeting. Consequently on 12-11-199 1, the meeting was convened by the Collector, Chum for consideration of the aforesaid third no confidence motion against the petitioner dated 15-10-199 1 and in that meeting, that no confidence motion has failed. 10. However, vide order Annexure 1 dated 11-11-1991, the petitioner was suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Chum. The petitioner has submitted that as he belongs to Congress-I Party, the members of the Janata Dal (D) (which is a partner of the Ruling Party in the State) including local M.L.A. (Respondent No. 2) were not happy with him and they have tried from the very beginning to unseat him and started harassing him on one pretext or the other. He has further submitted that the suspension order Annexure 1 dated 11-11-1991 has not been served on him so far but he has been able to get a verbatim copy of the same. That order discloses that since an inquiry under Section 63 of the Act has been commenced against the petitioner and as the allegations against him are prima facie found to be true, if the petitioner continues in the Office, it will adversely affect the inquiry and, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 63(4) of the Act the State Govt. has suspended the petitioner. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that he was never apprised of the so-called allegations levelled against him and had no opportunity whatsoever to controvert them. This was done mala fidely in order to thwart the no confidence motion because the members of the Opposite Party anticipated the result of the no confidence motion. has suspended the petitioner. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that he was never apprised of the so-called allegations levelled against him and had no opportunity whatsoever to controvert them. This was done mala fidely in order to thwart the no confidence motion because the members of the Opposite Party anticipated the result of the no confidence motion. He has, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction: .(a) theword ‘proceedings’ as used in Sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the Act be read down as inquiry and it be declared that suspension cannot be effected without considering reply of the member; .(b) without prejudice to above, Sub-section (4) of Section 63 be declared to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and be struck down; .(c) Theimpugned order Annexure- 1 dated 11-11-1991 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the petitioner functioning as Chairman of the Municipal Council, Chum. .(d) Any other relief which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, as deemed just and proper may also be granted; and .(e) Cost of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner. 12. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been claimed that earlier, when the case was listed before the learned single Judge, it was submitted by Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments that the allegations of mala fide against the Respondent No. 2 may be treated as withdrawn and he even submitted before the learned single Judge in Court that the name of Respondent No. 2 Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore be deleted and on this statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.N. Joshi, Advocate for Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore was not allowed to even argue the case. However, while amending the writ petition, the petitioner has again made some allegations of mala fide against Respondent No. 2 and has made him a party to the petition which is against the statement given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Court. 13. However, while amending the writ petition, the petitioner has again made some allegations of mala fide against Respondent No. 2 and has made him a party to the petition which is against the statement given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Court. 13. Itwas contended that in pursuance of the no confidence motions dated 31-8-1991 and 22-9-1991, meetings were not convened to consider them because on both these occasions, one of the signatories came and informed that his signatures have been obtained by coersive force and he has not subscribed to the No Confidence Motions. However, the last no confidence motion was put to vote on 12-11-1991 but it failed. It has been alleged that on 16-10-1991, 20 members of the Municipal Board made a complaint to the Hon’ble Minister for Local Self Government making serious allegations against the petitioner about misconduct in the discharge of his duties and flagrant abuses of his position as Chairman. It was alleged that the Octroi posts of Municipal Council, Chum which was situated in the midst of the City Opposite Mangleshwar Mahadeo Mandhir was vacated and the possession was handed over to the Mandir authorities without proper sanction and approval of the Municipal Board. It was further alleged that there were three Civil Suits which were pending in the Court of Munsif Chum bearing Civil Original Suits Nos. 183/87, 187/87 and 185/87 and in those suits, the cancellation of plots, which were allotted to the plaintiffs by the Municipal Board were challenged. In those cases, it is alleged that the petitioner appeared at his own and filed compromises nullifying the orders of cancellation and agreed that the Municipal Council, Chum would issue Lease Deeds to the plaintiffs. The petitioner was not authorised to put his appearance before the Court and to submit compromises without prior approval of the Municipal Board. It is the Commissioner of the Municipal Board, who is authorised to execute such compromise deeds. 14. It was further contended that the petitioner has misused his office and has allotted plots to his brothers and relatives. The petitioner was not authorised to put his appearance before the Court and to submit compromises without prior approval of the Municipal Board. It is the Commissioner of the Municipal Board, who is authorised to execute such compromise deeds. 14. It was further contended that the petitioner has misused his office and has allotted plots to his brothers and relatives. It was alleged that one Ramesh Jangid had imported certain goods in the Municipal Area without paying octroi and his goods were seized and he was asked to pay octroi duty plus penalty but the petitioner at his own motion ordered the release of the goods and also directed that no octroi should be charged on his goods. It is also alleged that the Commissioner of the Municipal Board, Chum had initiated proceedings for removal of unauthorised possessions over the land near Mangi-Sagar Kaur. That file was called by the petitioner and was kept with him and he directed the Commissioner not to take action in that matter. This complaint made under Section 103 of the Act was supported by documents. 15. On receipt of this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was ordered and Shri M.U. Siddiqui, Commissioner made the preliminary enquiries and has submitted his report to the Director of Local Self Government. The petitioner was informed to appear before the Enquiring Officer to submit his explanation, if he can do so but the Enquiry Officer was informed that the petitioner will come on his own. However, the Enquiry report was placed before the State Govt. and the State Govt. after proper application of mind and keeping in view the fact that the charges alleged against the petitioner were found to have been prima facie proved on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, ordered that chargesheet be drawn and pending enquiry, the petitioner be suspended. 16. According to the respondent, it is wrong to suggest that the petitioner was not apprised of the charges. He was asked by the Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry but he chose to remain absent. While relying on the decisions of this Court in Ugamsee Modi vs. State of Raj. (1962 RLW 184) and Bhuralal vs. State of Raj, (1988 (I) RLR 945), it has been contended that no pre-decisional hearing is required in such matters. He was asked by the Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry but he chose to remain absent. While relying on the decisions of this Court in Ugamsee Modi vs. State of Raj. (1962 RLW 184) and Bhuralal vs. State of Raj, (1988 (I) RLR 945), it has been contended that no pre-decisional hearing is required in such matters. What is required is that after due consideration of the preliminary enquiry report and after application of mind, if the State Govt. proposes to proceed against a Chairman of the Municipal Board as regards remova of his office then that Chairman can be suspended. It has been contended that the contention of the petitioner that no enquiry has yet commenced under Section 63 of the Act does not hold water as a copy of the Notice dated 11-11-1991 along with details of charges have already been submitted with the reply to the writ petition marked as Annexures Rule 2 and Rule 3 respectively. It was submitted that the order of suspension along with chargesheet could not be served on the petitioner as he avoided service of them and, therefore, they were pasted on his house in the presence of the witnesses. 17. It was further submitted that the preliminary enquiry report was considered by the Minister for Local Self Govt. on 4-11-1991 and a detailed order was passed. It is in pursuance of that order that this suspension order has been passed. According to the respondents, the word ‘proceedings’ carries a definite meaning and cannot be termed as vague. The petitioner will have an opportunity to explain his conduct because the matter has been referred for judicial enquiry and that is the stage when the petitioner will have an opportunity to explain his case. It has been submitted that it is not necessary that before suspension and before sending the matter to the Judicial Officer for enquiry, pre-decisional hearing should be provided to the Chairman of the Municipal Board. According to the respondents, this duplication is not at all called for. 18. According to the respondents, the petitioner was summoned to appear before the Local Self Minister on 6-12-1991 and 13-12-1991 but he refused to accept those notices. According to the respondents, this duplication is not at all called for. 18. According to the respondents, the petitioner was summoned to appear before the Local Self Minister on 6-12-1991 and 13-12-1991 but he refused to accept those notices. Now, under the orders of the Local Self Minister the matter has been referred for enquiry to the Joint Legal Remembrancer and he has issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 28-1-1992. According to the respondents, the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, they cannot be struck down. 19. A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, an effort has been made to explain all these allegations which have been levelled against him and it has been claimed that the compromises have been filed in all the three cases in pursuance of a resolution of the Municipal Board. The petitioner has further submitted that he has only ordered for the vacation of the Pyao and the rest of the building has been vacated at the instance of the Commissioner and not under this orders. He has not received any notice from the Local Self Govt. Minister on 6-12-199 1. He has also not received any notice from the Joint Legal Remembrancer to appear before him on 28-1-1992. The allegations as regards the release of goods of Shri Ramesh Jangid and thereby causing loss of Octroiduty have been refuted. Rather, it has been claimed that the collection of octroi duty during his tenure has increased to a great extent. According to the petitioner, he does. not know whether any preliminary enquiry was held against him or not. Additional affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Chum as also on behalf of Intervener Shri, Mohd. Hussain in support of the documents filed by them... 20. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul, and Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the petitioner Murlidhar, Mr. K.N. Joshi for the petitioner Jan Mohd., L.S. Udawat learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. L. M. Lodha Mr. M. S. Singhvi the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervener Shri Mohd. Hussain. We have carefully gone through the record of the case. 9.21. 20. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul, and Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the petitioner Murlidhar, Mr. K.N. Joshi for the petitioner Jan Mohd., L.S. Udawat learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. L. M. Lodha Mr. M. S. Singhvi the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervener Shri Mohd. Hussain. We have carefully gone through the record of the case. 9.21. Thelearned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act should be read down to include the principles of natural justice i.e., audi alterm partem. According to them, suspension of an elected representative should not take place without affording him an opportunity of hearing. In support of this submission, they have placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Pandey vs. Chancellor, Bihar University ( AIR 1968 SC 353 ) (Head Note B) They have further contended that if this submission does not find favour with the Court then keeping in view the elementary principles of law, i.e., if any action of the State Govt. which visits somebody with civil and evil consequences then even if that action is administrative in character and has been taken in exercise of the executive powers of the State, it has to be reasonable and fair; and even in matters of administrative action, the State has to act reasonably and fairly and if the State action is not reasonable and fair then such an action is arbitrary and when it is arbitrary, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act should be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to them, it is an admitted case of the respondents that before passing order suspending the petitioners, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to them and when their explanations have not been considered before their suspension, their suspension itself is per se illegal. It is penal in character and, therefore, the suspension of the petitioners which has been brought about without affording an opportunity of being heard is violative of the principle