Honble PALLI, J. – The petitioner here in this petition has laid challenged to show cause notice dated 30th November,1994 (Annex.7) and order of suspension dated 23rd Feb.1995 (Annex.9). (2). Municipal Elections were held in Begu District Chitorgarh in the year 1990.It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner belongs to Congress party. The total strength of the Board consists of 13 members,12 members belongs to Congress party and one to Bhartiya Janta Party. Admittedly the term of the elected members of the Board is five years. One Smt. Chanchal Lata Surana w/o Shri Balwant Surana is presently the Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board. Her husband is the Chairman of the block of Congress party. Due to rivalries Smt. Chanchal Lata and her husband ever since the petitioner has been elected as President, have been creating problems in his way by making false and frivolous complaints with the motive that the Vice Chairman occupies the position of the Chairman. (3). It is further said in the petition that since the Bhartiya Janta Party is presently ruling in the State of Rajasthan and is opposed to the ideology of the Congress party,further problems have been created for the petitioner by the local B.J.P. M.L.A. and by the Government. (4). A question was also raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly as back as in 1992 and allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding unauthorised possession and illegal encroachments and for that purpose Annexs.1 and 2 have been placed on record. This was done by the M.L.A. who represents Begu constituency in the assembly. Soon after this the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 16th September, 1992 as to why action should not be taken against him under section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).This notice has been placed on record as Annex.3. Reply to this notice was given by the petitioner and soon thereafter a letter was received from the Joint Legal Remembrancer, State of Rajasthan intimating to the petitioner that an enquiry into the matter has been referred to him. This letter is Annex.4. (5). The matter did not rest here and a complaint was filed by Sh.Balwant Surana who happens to be the husband of the Vice Chairman of the Board in order to brighten the chances for his wife becoming a Chairman. This letter is Annex.4. (5). The matter did not rest here and a complaint was filed by Sh.Balwant Surana who happens to be the husband of the Vice Chairman of the Board in order to brighten the chances for his wife becoming a Chairman. This complaint was made through the Local Member of the Legislative Assembly reference to whom has already been made above in the order and this complaint was made to the Minister, Local Self Government. Complaint dated 3rd Feb.1994 has been placed as Annex.5. (6). Another complaint was filed by Chetan Das Vaishnav who happens to be the Chairman of the Bhartiya Janta Party Mandal Begu. This was in reference to the enquiry that was started in the year 1992 and this complaint is Annexure 6, on the record. (7). A show cause notice was again issued on 30th November 1994 under Sec. 63 of the Act asking the petitioner to put in the reply. This show cause notice Annex.7 is under challenge in this petition. Reply to this notice was also filed on 12th December, 1994 vide Annex.8. (8). Vide order dated 23rd Feb.,1995 (Annex.9) which again is under challenge, the petitioner was intimated that prima facie serious charges have been found again him and there being a chance of the enquiry being effected, it was considered not to allow him to function as Chairman of the Board and, therefore, he is put under suspension. (9). The petitioner has also made reference to the charges which are subject matter of enquiry. These charges are six in number.In the first two charges the petitioner is blamed for not convening the meetings of the Board regularly, the third charge relates to some works undertaken without inviting tenders, the fourth charge relates to certain irregularities in the purchase of some items which were essentially required, fifth charge is regarding installation of the statues of Smt.Indira Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi and the sixth charge relates to the purchase of a trolley and as the petitioner demonstrates that, so far as charges No.1 and 2 are concerned meetings of the Board or the committees cannot be called by the Chairman and so far as the conduct of business of the committees is concerned it is not the responsibility of the Chairman to conduct the business of the committee and convene meetings. Regarding third charge it is said that small and petty jobs were undertaken under the Nehru Yojgar Yojna and jobs of very petty amounts were undertaken according to B.S.R. rates. Regarding charge No.4 it is said that very small items were bought of small amount and these were essentially needed. A case was put up by the Executive Officer for the purchase of these items on the basis of spot quotations. Tenders had been invited but no body had responded and therefore, the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the involvement. Regarding fifth charge it is said that the matter was brought to the notice of the Director and he was asked to give permission for the installation of the statues and in turn the Director had written to the Board that the Board itself was competent and vested with the powers and there was no need for seeking any permission.This letter has been placed as Annex.10. Regarding charge No. 6 it is said that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was sanctioned by the State Government for the purchase of equipment for cleaning purposes. It had been resolved by the Board to purchase a tractor and a trolley. Regarding purchase of tractor request has been made to the Bank for loan and in the process a trolley was purchased as there was fear of the amount going to be lapsed. (10). In the return filed by the respondent State it is said that the matter already stands referred to the Joint Legal Remembrancer of enquiry where the same is pending. There were serious complaints against the petitioner by the Block Chairman of the Congress Party. The matter was enquired through the agency of the Collector and after the preliminary enquiry made by the S.D.O., prima facie, allegations were found against the petitioner. It is admitted that complaints were forwarded through the agency of M.L.A. and as a follow of action the Minister was requested to take appropriate action. After considering the reply, charge sheet has been ordered to be issued and the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry and it was wrong that the show cause notice has been issued on extraneous consideration and it was politically motivated. (11). Mr. M. Mridul learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner fall within the parameters of Sec.63 of the Act. (11). Mr. M. Mridul learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner fall within the parameters of Sec.63 of the Act. It would be most appropriate at this stage to have a look at the provisions contained in Sec.63 of the Act and the same is reproduced here- under:– "63 Removal of members .-(1) The State Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) removal 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 under trial prisoner or as a detenue or as a political 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 Sections 18 or Section 26 or has caused 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 of performing his duties as a member, or (iv) otherwise flagrantly abused in any manner his position as such member; 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. (1A.) The power conferred by sub-section (1) may be exercised by the State Government of its own motion or upon the receipt 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 of 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 to 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 any thing 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 that sub section and after hearing the ex planation 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 enquiry 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 along with such findings to 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 proceeding have been commenced under 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 mem- ber 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 be liable to be called in question in any court. (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 be liable to be called in question in any court. (12) It is submitted that none of the charges can even remotely be taken as misconduct in the discharge of duties or disgraceful conduct which may render the petitioner incapable of performing his duties nor the same can be said to be a flagrant abuse in any manner. It is contended that the charges are vague, indefinite and are aimed at to tarnish the image of the petitioner and to liquidate him politically. (13). It has been conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties at the Bar that next Municipal elections are going to be held shortly as the term of the Board is going to complete. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has to contest the election again and the respondents have partly succeeded in their mission the blacken the image of the petitioner due to political rivalries and now this order of suspension and enquiry would be made full use of by the opponent and thus the action is challenged as politically vindictive with the prayer that the show cause notice as well as order of suspension be quashed. (14) Mr. Mridul forcefully contends that charges were framed earlier also and for quite a considerable period passed by and it was never thought to suspend the petitioner and it was long after the show cause notice and the reply when the impugned order has been passed. It is not denied by both the sides that order of suspension could be passed simultaneously with the issuance of show cause no- tice or suspension anticipating enquiry. It has also been stated that the charges even at their face value were relating to minor irregularities and still every act was done after unanimous resolution of the Board to that effect . (15). The learned counsel to strengthen his arguments has placed reliance on the case law reported as Fateh Singh vs. The State of Raj. & ors. (1) Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. & ors. (2), Daulat Ram and another vs. Huma Nand & ors. (3) Dr. R.K.Sharma vs. State of Raj. (4) and Amitava Mukherji vs. State of Raj. (5). (16). Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Addl. & ors. (1) Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. & ors. (2), Daulat Ram and another vs. Huma Nand & ors. (3) Dr. R.K.Sharma vs. State of Raj. (4) and Amitava Mukherji vs. State of Raj. (5). (16). Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General forcefully contends that on the preliminary enquiry having been made, the allegations were prima facie found correct. He has also invited my attention to Annexure 2 for this purpose. My attention has also been invited by Mr. Udawat to the various paragraphs appearing in the judgment of the Honble Division Bench in Jan Mohd.s case (supra) and submits that a complaint was received by the Government, it was enquired into and the same was considered by the Government. It was thereafter the preliminary enquiry report was asked and the provisions in the Act provides sufficient safegua- rds and, therefore, this court shall not venture to probe in the matter. (17). It was further said that highly disputed questions of fact were involved in the matter and this court would not sit over the decision of the Government in a matter like this. The State Government has not passed the order of suspension arbitrarily nor the act can be said to be malafide. The action has been taken after due application of mind and only when a conclusion had been arrived at that the matter needs further probe. (18). It is next contended that since the matter is pending for judicial enquiry this Court should refrain itself from going into the points raised by the petitioner. (19). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on scrutiny of the record I find that the petitioner is being politically victimised. He is holding an elected public office, the term of which is only five years. Right from the time he has been elected as Chairman of the Board there has been a crusade by his opponents to put him in problems and this starts from the year 1992, then complaints by the local M.L.A. the local Chairman of the Mandal of the Bhartiya Janta party and by the husband of the Vice Chairman of the Board. He has been charge sheeted earlier and the matter is pending. The matter was initiated again on other charges reference to which has already been made above in the order. He has been charge sheeted earlier and the matter is pending. The matter was initiated again on other charges reference to which has already been made above in the order. A show cause notice was issued to his in November, 1994 which is Annex.7, reply to which was filed on 12th December, 1994 and the order to suspension has been passed on 23rd Feb. 1995 which is Annex.9 when the next elections are going to be held soon hereafter. (20). The facts in chronological order with the dates make it clear that for almost four years the petitioner has been engaged by his opponents to face charges, enquiry, show cause notice besides coming to this court time and again for inter- vention in the matter. How could such a person find time in such a situation to put his heart and soul for the development and other activities of the citizens when he has to put in lot of energy in saving his position as an elected Chairman. (21). Although I am not examining the charges in detail nor I desire to give any opinion since the enquiry is pending into the matter at the hands of a Senior Judicial Officer of the State who happens to be the Joint Legal Remembrancer of the State of Rajasthan but on a cursory look I see that the charges are not that serious which could result in suspension. (22). Suspension means to put a stop to for the time being, to debar or cause to withdraw temporarily from any privilege, office or function. In a given situation it may also be mean to hold some one in an interminate state and in tense uncertainty, an conditional withholding, suspected of crime on suspicion. It is not something automatic which flows as a necessary consequence of show cause notice. (23). This proposition is conceded that after the suspension order the petitioner cannot even participate in the meetings of the Board and other deliberations. (24). The matter can be viewed from another angle also, that as and when some body is elected as a Chairman his political opponents or some one of the bureaucratic set up on a complaint puts the person in suspension and thereafter the enquiry may take a few years and by the time he is exonerated his entire term might be over. This would not be in the spirit of running democratic institutions and would destroy its very fabric. The political opponents are free to raise their grieva- nces in the meetings of the Board, then there is a provision for the audit etc. and in my opinion such like of items should be confined to the Board itself and should be solved there. It is presumed that there was application of mind and the matter was looked into objectively when the show cause notice was issued. it was not thought desirable at that time to suspend the petitioner. It is only after looking Annex.6 when it was moved and the machinery of the State came into motion resulting in suspension of the petitioner. (25). Suspension is some time looked as some thing serious and before any such action is taken the concerned authority has to bear it in mind that there is no malice or the step was not being taken arbitrarily maliciously or vindictively. Elec- ted representative of the public like the petitioner who happens to be the Chair- man of the Municipal Board have to keep their conduct clean and whenever such type of things happened it does carry a stigma and the person feels embarrassed in his party,the general public and particularly the electorate on whose strength and support, he comes to occupy that position. (26). The learned counsel are relying upon a division Bench Decision in Jan Mohds case (Supra), which was a case of suspension of the two Chairmen of the Municipal Board. The learned Judges constituting the bench at the conclusion have sounded a word of caution that the holders of these elective public posts cannot be equated with Government Servants and therefore a holder of an elected post when he is suspended the Government must have sufficient reasons to do so. It was further said that care should be taken that such suspensions are not arbitrary and are not brought about for political motives or consideration. The suspension does not determine the matter finally. It further does not result in any consequences as allegations regarding misconduct or other acts have yet to be enquired into. It was further said that care should be taken that such suspensions are not arbitrary and are not brought about for political motives or consideration. The suspension does not determine the matter finally. It further does not result in any consequences as allegations regarding misconduct or other acts have yet to be enquired into. If the acts or charges do not embrace the provisions under which he is being proceeded with such an act would not only be against the interest of the person who holds the office but against the interest of the very institution, the office of which he holds. The whole idea of suspension is that the suspended person does not cause any embarrassment in the enquiry proceedings or his remaining in the office would prejudice the enquiry. (27). In my opinion this should not be the case so far as the petitioner is concerned. The enquiry is being held by Senior Judicial Officer of the State Government and I cannot subscribe to the view that the person like the petitioner in case he remains the Chairman of the Board would cause any embarrassment to the Enquiry Officer or that the enquiry would be prejudiced in any way. The objective satisfaction of the State has to be taken notice of by the court though the court would not super impose its discretion as held in the Division Bench decision referred to above. It has, thus been left to the court to examine whether the satisfaction was arrived at objectively or arbitrarily. (28). The establishment of the Municipal Board in the form of Local Self Government in the Urban Areas is aimed at for Urban development and administration. Small political rivalries hamper development and further result in wastage of time and energy. Others should be directed to use this energy for the citizen to whom these elected representatives represent. (29). Suspension should not be resorted to in the cases of an elected public officer unless there is something eminently grave. More over the type of allegations against the petitioner are a matter of record. It, thus would not effect enquiry even if he is permitted to continue in the office. (30). In short suspension should not be used as a handy tool for disgrinttled political rivals since it destroys the very institution and it is the interest of the institution that suffers in the process. (31). It, thus would not effect enquiry even if he is permitted to continue in the office. (30). In short suspension should not be used as a handy tool for disgrinttled political rivals since it destroys the very institution and it is the interest of the institution that suffers in the process. (31). Again as I look at the provision contained under Sec. 63 (1) (d) the mis- conduct or the performance of duties have to be of the kind that these amount to a flagrant abuse or allowing some one to remain in the office would be harmful to the interest of the institution. (32). The language of sub-section (4) where suspension has to be made does not indicate that where proceedings have commenced a person has to be placed under suspension. Rather suspension leads to drastic consequence as sub-section (4) prescribes that the suspended member shall not be entitled to take part in proceedings of the Board or perform the duties of the member thereof. (33). Nothing has been said from the side of the respondents in the written statement as to what necessitated for taking of such a course and how a step was taken at a belated stage. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent have not been able to persuade me to take a different view of the matter. (34). The petitioner has been making a grievance that there was no regularly qualified person working as an Rxecutive Officer of the Board. The posting of qualified Executive Officer is absolutely necessary for the smooth functioning of the Board. He has to convene meetingd and is the agency through whom the Board functions. It is he who has to implement resolutions and carry forward the develop ment and other works to their logic end. Even in the complaint against the petitioner in Annx.5 a request was made to the concerned Minister for appointment of a qualified and competent Executive Officer for the smooth running of the Board. It appears that no heed was paid to this and in my opinion the petitioner may be feeling quite handicapped in the functioning of the Board. (35). Even in the complaint against the petitioner in Annx.5 a request was made to the concerned Minister for appointment of a qualified and competent Executive Officer for the smooth running of the Board. It appears that no heed was paid to this and in my opinion the petitioner may be feeling quite handicapped in the functioning of the Board. (35). I have already indicated above that I am not going into the correctness of the charges and the reply filed by the petitioner since it is subject matter of a judicial enquiry at the hands of Joint Legal Remembrancer and I refrain my self from commenting on it. I further desire to make it clear that nothing said here in this order would be taken notice of by the Enquiry Officer not any expression of opinion would be taken to prejudice enquiry which is pending. The Enquiry Officer shall on the completion of enquiry would be at liberty to draw his conclusions on the basis of material placed before him. (36). Though in view of the settled principles of law this court would not interfere in suspension order lightly since suspension is only a deprivation of ones status and that too temporarily. It does not amount to penalty and is normally ordered when the truth of the allegations of misconduct or corruption is under scrutiny. It neither effects the status of the person holding the office nor effects in any other form, but that is in the case of the persons where the rules of master and servant apply. As I have already indicated the office held in the elected representa tive of the public cannot be equated with that of the Government employees since these officetd are held by the incumbent for a fixed period of time and the court would not shirk its responsibility to intervene in the matter as and when a glaring case of the kind is brought before it. Power even in such like cases should be used very sparingly and that too with utmost caution and care and the court would not provide to the political rivals to use its platform to serve their personal ends and settle their scores. (37). For the reasons recorded above I find that the suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. (38). The writ petition is, thus, partly allowed. (37). For the reasons recorded above I find that the suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. (38). The writ petition is, thus, partly allowed. The order dated 23rd February, 1995 (Annex.9) suspending the petitioner is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.