JUDGMENT 1. - This petition involves a challenge to the order dated 18.5.92 passed by the Government for suspension of the petitioner, who was at the relevant time holding office of the Member, Municipal Board, Srimadhopur and for quashing of the show cause notice dated 12.5.92, first information report No. 63/92 dated 26.4.92 and for some incidental directions for allowing the petitioner to participate in the meetings of Municipal Board, Srimadhopur as its Member. 2. Although pleadings of the party are very elaborate, I do not consider it necessary to make a detailed reference to all these pleadings because in my opinion question relating to the validity of petition can be decided in the light of provisions contained in Section 63(4) read with Section 250 of the Municipalities Act, 1959 and for this purpose factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner has claimed that he is a resident of Ward No. 11 of Srimadhopur Municipality. He belongs to Scheduled Caste and as a Member of that category, he was elected to the Municipal Board, Srimadhopur as a nominee of Congress-I party. The Chairman of the Municipal Board Shri Salig Ram Choudhary had contested election as a nominee of the Bhartiya Janta Party and according to the petitioner, as is on the national scene, two parties are at loggerheads in the Municipal Board also. The petitioner claims that he has made several complaints against the undemocratic functioning of the Chairman. 4. A first information report was filed against the petitioner sometimes in the month of April 1992 with the police station of Srimadhopur. A copy of this report was also forwarded to the Government of Rajasthan in the Directorate of Local Bodies. On the basis of report, action was proposed against the petitioner under Section 63 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). A notice dated 12.5.92 was issued by the Government to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation within three days as to why proceedings be not taken against him for terminating his membership. The petitioner asserted that he submitted his detailed explanation to the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Government Department on 16.5.92 but without considering the reply, the Government passed order dated 18.5.92 suspending him in the purported exercise of its power under Section 63(4) of the Act. The petitioner asserted that he submitted his detailed explanation to the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Government Department on 16.5.92 but without considering the reply, the Government passed order dated 18.5.92 suspending him in the purported exercise of its power under Section 63(4) of the Act. The petitioner's case is that notice dated 12.5.92 was not served upon him in a regular manner and the reply submitted by him was not even placed before the Hon'ble Minister, who has taken the decision for suspension of the petitioner. The respondents have contested this claim of the petitioner by asserting that the notice dated 12.5.92 was served on the petitioner by affixation and he had full knowledge of the said notice. He submitted his reply only on 23.5.92 and much before that a decision had been taken by the Hon'ble Minister for suspension of the petitioner under Section 63(4). 5. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General produced before the court file relating to first information report lodged against the petitioner as well as the file of Government in which case relating to suspension of the petitioner has been dealt with. A look at the government's file shows that on receipt of copy of the information regarding the filing of first information report against the petitioner, the Assistant Director prepared a note suggesting action against the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act. This proposal was approved by the Hon'ble Minister and then notice dated 12.5.92 was issued under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary to the Government-cum-Director, Local Bodies. A copy of the notice, which is found at page 31 of the file show that it was despatched on 13.5.92. At the back of this notice there is a report of Process Server of the Office of Tehsildar, Srimadhopur that he had gone to the house of Prem Prakash on 13.5.91 (13.5.92) and there he learnt that petitioner had gone out. He, therefore, affixed the notice on the house of the petitioner in the presence of two persons. This report has been verified by Tehsildar, Srimadhopur. Thereafter, on 18.5.92 the file is shown to have been placed before the Hon'ble Minister, Local Self Government. The Hon'ble Minister noted that notice had been issued to the petitioner for taking action under Section 63. It has been served on 13.5.92 by affixation in the absence of petitioner. This report has been verified by Tehsildar, Srimadhopur. Thereafter, on 18.5.92 the file is shown to have been placed before the Hon'ble Minister, Local Self Government. The Hon'ble Minister noted that notice had been issued to the petitioner for taking action under Section 63. It has been served on 13.5.92 by affixation in the absence of petitioner. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation by 15.5.92, he has however not submitted his explanation. The Hon'ble Minister then reproduced the contents of the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the complaint made against him and observed that the acts and omissions of the petitioner come within the definition of misconduct and, therefore, there was sufficient justification for taking action against the petitioner under Section 63(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Minister again noted that the petitioner had deliberately not submitted his explanation. He then ordered the placing of the petitioner under suspension in terms of Section 63(4) of the Act. He also directed that the file be sent to the judicial officer (Joint Legal Remembrancer) with the charge sheet for holding inquiry under Section 63(2). On the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in the file, the impugned order of suspension was issued. 6. Shri R.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that even though the petitioner had submitted his reply on 165.92, the concerned Minister has not even looked into the reply before coming to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for holding an inquiry tinder Section 63(2). Shri Rathore argued that the note of Minister to the effect that the petitioner had deliberately not submitted his reply shows prejudiced approach of the Hon'ble Minister. This action suffers from arbitrariness and is malicious. Shri Bhandari, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand urged that the petitioner is to blame himself for not having submitted the reply within the stipulated period. Shri Bhandari further argued that the petitioner had full knowledge of the notice dated 12.5.92 and he intentionally did not file a reply within time so as to reach the Hon'ble Minister. Shri Bhandari also submitted that the Government has revoked the order of suspension during the pendency of writ petition and, therefore, no further relief is required to be given to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. Shri Bhandari also submitted that the Government has revoked the order of suspension during the pendency of writ petition and, therefore, no further relief is required to be given to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. This Court had on 19.5.92 passed an interim order and directed that the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the meeting of No Confidence Motion which was going to be held on that very day. The Court further directed that in case the vote of petitioner adversely affected respondent No. 3 i.e., the Chairman, the result of No Confidence Motion shall not be declared. In terms of the direction given by the Court, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the No Confidence Motion which was held on 19.5.92. However, result of the No Confidence Motion has not been declared so far. That apart, although it is true that the Government has revoked the order of suspension on 21.1.93, such revocation is prospective. Revocation of suspension is not from the date of passing of the order of suspension and, therefore, it cannot be said that the grievance made by the petitioner regarding the order of his suspension has become infructuous. 8. Section 63 contains provision relating to removal of Members. This Section reads as under: "Removal of member.-(1) The State Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), remove a member of a board on any of the following grounds,namely (a) that he has absented himself from the meetings of the board for more than three consecutive months or three consecutive ordinary general meetings, whichever is the longer period, without leave of the board: Provided that the period during which such member was in jail as an undertrial prisoner or as a detenue or as a plitical prisoner shall not be taken into account; (b) that he has failed to comply with the provisions of section 61. (c) that after his election he has incurred any of the disqualification mentioned in section 18 or section 26 or has ceased to fulfil the requirements of section 24. (c) that after his election he has incurred any of the disqualification mentioned in section 18 or section 26 or has ceased to fulfil the requirements of section 24. (d) that he has (i) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or (ii) been guilty of any disgraceful conduct, or (iii) become incapable for performing his duties as a member, or (iv) otherwise flagrantly abused in any manner his position as such member or Provided that an order of removal shall be passed by the State Government after such inquiry as it considers necessary to make either itself or through such officer or authority as it may direct and after the member concerned has been afforded an opportunity of explanation. 1.A) The power conferred by sub-section(1) may be exercised by the State Government of its own motion or upon the receipt of a report from the board in that behalf or upon the facts otherwise coming to the knowledge of the State Government: Provided that until a member is removed from office by an order or the State Government under this section, he shall not vacate his office and shall, subject to the provisions contained in sub-section(4), continue to act as, and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of, a member and shall as such be entitled to all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities, of a member under this act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) where it is proposed to remove a member on any of the grounds specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section(1), as a result of the inquiry referred to in the proviso to the sub-section and after hearing the explanation of the member concerned, the State Government shall draw up a statement setting out distinctly the charge against the member and shall send the same for inquiry and findings by Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge to be appointed by the State Government for the purpose. (3) The Judicial Officer so appointed shall proceed to inquire into the charge in the prescribed manner, hear the member concerned, if he makes appearance, record his findings on each matter embodied in the statement as well as on every other matter he considers relevant to the charge and send the record alongwith such findings to the State Government, which shall thereupon pass orders in conformity with those findings. (4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the State Government may place under suspension a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under this section until the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order and the member so suspended shall not be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform the duties of a member thereof. (5) Every order of the State Government passed under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall be final and no such order shall be liable to be called in question in any court." 9. An analysis of Section 63 shows that the Government can take action for removal of a Member of a board either on its own motion or on receipt of a report from the board or upon the facts otherwise coming to the knowledge of the government. Section 63(2), which begins with a non-obstante expression imposes a mandatory obligation on the Government to draw up a statement setting out distinctly the charges against a member and send the same to a Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge for inquiry and findings. In terms of Section 63(3) the Judicial Officer is required to hear the member concerned in respect of the charges levelled against him and then record findings on each of the charges and send his report alongwith the record to the government. Section 63(4) empowers the Government to suspend a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under Section 63. Section 250 of the Act contains the procedure for service of notice, order etc. Section 250(1) also deserves to be reproduced. It reads as under : "Service of notices, etc. Section 63(4) empowers the Government to suspend a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under Section 63. Section 250 of the Act contains the procedure for service of notice, order etc. Section 250(1) also deserves to be reproduced. It reads as under : "Service of notices, etc. addressed to individuals-(1) The service of every notice or order and the presentation of every bill under this Act or under a rule or bye-law made thereunder on any person or to any person to whom it is by name addressed shall, in all cases not otherwise specially provided for therein, be effected by a municipal officer or servant or other person authorised by the board in this behalf - (a) by giving or tendering such notice, order or bill to the person to whom it is addressed; or (b) if such person is not found, by leaving the notice, order or bill at his last known place of abode with or by giving or tendering the notice, order or bill to, some adult male member or servant of his family; or (c) if such person does not reside within the municipal limits and his address elsewhere is known to the chairman or other person directing the issue of the notice, order or bill, then by forwarding the notice, order or bill, to such person by registered post under cover bearing the said address; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, then by causing the bill, order or notice to be affixed in the presence of two persons of the locality on some conspicuous part of the building or land, if any to which the bill, order or notice relates." 10. A bare look at Section 250(1) shows that the procedure prescribed in this section has to be followed strictly before a notice, order or bill can be said to have been served on the concerned person. Unless notice is served in accordance with the manner prescribed under Section 250(1), order or notice cannot be treated as legal. 11. In the light of these provisions, if reference is again made to the facts relating to service of notice on the petitioner, it can be said that the notice dated 12.5.92, which was sent on 13.5.92 from Jaipur, was not served on the petitioner. This may be on account of his non-availability at his residence. 11. In the light of these provisions, if reference is again made to the facts relating to service of notice on the petitioner, it can be said that the notice dated 12.5.92, which was sent on 13.5.92 from Jaipur, was not served on the petitioner. This may be on account of his non-availability at his residence. If the petitioner was not available, the Process Server was required to leave the notice at the house of the petitioner and or to give a copy of the same to some adult male member of his family or servant of his family. This has admittedly not been done. Another alternative mode of serving the notice by registered post has also not been followed. The Process Server followed the procedure prescribed in Section 250(1)(d). That he could not have done except in a case where the other three modes were not available. So far the case in hand is concerned, it has neither been pleaded nor proved by the respondents that any one of the three other alternative modes were not available to them for effecting service on the petitioner. It must, therefore, be held that the service of notice on the petitioner by affixation of the same at the residence of the petitioner was itself illegal. Logical corollary of holding that the notice was not validly served on the petitioner is that the action taken by the respondent Board is unlawful. 12. There is yet another way of looking at the things. Even if it is assumed that the service of notice was legal and in any event the petitioner had knowledge of the notice, it is to be seen that the petitioner did submit his reply to the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Government on 16.5.92. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the court's attention to the endorsement given by the employees of the Directorate of Local Bodies regarding receipt of the explanation of petitioner dated 16.5.92. The typed copy of the reply, which is available on record, also shows that it was dealt with by the Director of Local Bodies sometimes on or before 18.5.92 itself. Thus, although the seal affixed on this copy of the notice bears the date 23.5.92, that cannot be treated as conclusive. Rather this only depicts incorrect date. The typed copy of the reply, which is available on record, also shows that it was dealt with by the Director of Local Bodies sometimes on or before 18.5.92 itself. Thus, although the seal affixed on this copy of the notice bears the date 23.5.92, that cannot be treated as conclusive. Rather this only depicts incorrect date. The matter had been considered by the Hon'ble Minister on 18.5.92 and it has not been shown by the respondents as to why the explanation of petitioner was not placed before the Hon'ble Minister at the time of consideration made by him on the question of suspension of the petitioner. If the authorities of the Department had been a bit vigilant, the explanation would have been placed before the Hon'ble Minister and there could not have been an occasion .for the Hon'ble Minister to record that the petitioner has deliberately not filed the explanation within the stipulated time. The casual manner with which the authorities of the Directorate of Local Bodies have acted in the matter leaves much to be desired. It cannot be overlooked that suspension of a public representative is a matter of serious concern because with his suspension the elected representative is denigrated in the eye of public and loses his status during the period of his suspension. The adverse effects suffered by the elected representative on account of the suspension are immense and no amount of compensation, monetarily or otherwise, can undo the harm caused to the elected representative by his suspension. Therefore in such matters order should be made with great care and circumspection and those who are required to deal with the matter, have to act with great care and caution. 13. The matter can be looked into from yet another angle. The order passed by the Hon'ble Minister on the file and other proceedings show that the Government issued order dated 18.5.92 without even framing charges against the petitioner. The note of Hon'ble the Minister dated 18.5.92 only contains a direction that the file be sent to the Judicial Officer (Joint Legal Remembrancer) along with the charge sheet for making an inquiry under Section 63(2) of the Act. Section 63(4) uses the expression "against whom proceedings have been commenced under this section". The note of Hon'ble the Minister dated 18.5.92 only contains a direction that the file be sent to the Judicial Officer (Joint Legal Remembrancer) along with the charge sheet for making an inquiry under Section 63(2) of the Act. Section 63(4) uses the expression "against whom proceedings have been commenced under this section". Making of a preliminary inquiry under section 63 cannot be equated with the proceedings envisaged by Section 63(2) because at the stage of preliminary inquiry the Government does not even get an opportunity to apply its mind. The Government for the first time gets hold of the matter when it decides to take action under Section 63(2) of the Act. When the Government takes a decision to initiate an action under Section 63(2), it is required to draw up a statement setting out charges against the member and to send the same for inquiry and findings to a Judicial Officer. It is only with the framing of charges and sending of the same to Judicial Officer for inquiry, that it can be said that the proceedings have commenced. Issue of charge sheet must, therefore, be held to be sine qua non before power under Section 63(4) can be invoked. Even in the cases of All India Service Officers, provision contained in Rule 33 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1960, uses the words "inquiry initiated" in the provision relating to suspension. Inquiry can be said to have been initiated only when a charge sheet is issued to the concerned officer calling upon him to submit his explanation. This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, 1972 S.L.R. 219 , and it has been held that till charge sheet is issued by the competent authority, power of suspension of a member of All India Service cannot be exercised. In my opinion, the expression "proceedings have been commenced" also means framing of charges and issue of charge sheet by the Government and sending the same for inquiry to a Judicial Officer. Till then, the Government cannot exercise the power of suspension under Section 63(4) of the Act. This is precisely what has been done in the present case, namely the petitioner has, been suspended even before the framing of charges against him. 14. Till then, the Government cannot exercise the power of suspension under Section 63(4) of the Act. This is precisely what has been done in the present case, namely the petitioner has, been suspended even before the framing of charges against him. 14. On the basis of the above discussion, it must be held that order of suspension of the petitioner issued on 18.5.92 suffers from lack of jurisdiction and serious legal infirmities and is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 18.5.92 is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. Since an interim order was passed by this court in regard to the No Confidence Motion for which meeting was held on 19.5.92, it is directed that the competent authority shall now declare the result of No Confidence Motion forthwith. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******