Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – The petitioner is the elected Ward Member of Municipal Board, Rajsamand from Ward No. 21. Later on, he contested the election of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and was declared elected. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Chairman of the Municipal Board. On 22.10.96 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for explanation u/s 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act hereinafter). On 5.11.96 a reply was filed by the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued that while holding thepost of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, the petitioner at his whims has effected renovation of the chamber without inviting tenders or even issuing the work order. He has not fixed the rates for executing the work and, therefore, he has committed financial irregularity using his position. Charge No. 2 is to the effect that on 25.6.97, tenders were invited for carrying out the work of paver at six places.The tenders were opened on 2.7.97 and the permission to carry out the work to M/s. Kaviraj Construction was issued whereas the work at six places was completed even prior to issuing of tenders. This way the tenders were invited only to fill up the lacuna and the work was carried out without inviting tenders using the position and thereby caused financial loss to the Municipal Board. It is contrary to the Nagar Pali-ka (Samanya Karya & Anubandh) Rules, 1974 (for short `the Rules hereinafter). After the issuance of the charge sheet, an order of suspension was issued suspending the petitioner from the Chairmanship of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and the matter was handed over for judicial enquiry as contemplated u/s 63(2) of the Act. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that before the enquiry as con-templated under the proviso to sub- section (1) of s. 63 is completed, no proceedings under sub- section (4) of s. 63 could have been taken against the petitioner. (2). Under the facts of the case, I need not go into this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as the petitioners suspension order was issued only after the issuance of the charge sheet. However, it would be fruitful to refer to thedecision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. Under the facts of the case, I need not go into this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as the petitioners suspension order was issued only after the issuance of the charge sheet. However, it would be fruitful to refer to thedecision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. (1), whereby the Division Bench approved the decision of another Division Bench rendered in Mohanlal vs. State of Raj. (2), and observed as under :– ``The Division Bench after considering Ugamsee Modis (supra) and the provisions of Ss. 63(2), (3), (4) and (5) came to the conclusion that though for purposes of Sub-section (1) of S. 63, a preliminary inquiry would be held to have commenced no sooner cognizance is taken of a complaint by the Govt. against such Officer, yet proceedings should be taken to commence in the meaning of the term under Sub-Section (4) to S. 63 only when process is ordered to issue against such person or when the authority makes up its mind to take action. At this stage, the Govt. makes up its mind whether or not to take action and that, in our opinion, is the stage of commencement of proceedings for purposes of Section 63(4). (3). The conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of S. 63 indicates thatthe proceedings would be taken to be commenced within the meaning of sub-section (4) of S. 63 when the authority makes up its mind to take action against the person. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Director (Regional), Local Bodies, Jodhpur alleges that on 19.7.97, charges against the petitioner were framed and thereafter the order of suspension has been issued against the petitioner. The charges framedagainst the petitioner are as mentioned above. Framing of charges by the respondent against the petitioner clearly indicates the Govt. making up its mind to take action against the petitioner. Prima facie, on reading the charges, it cannot be said that they do not fall within S. 63(1)(d) of the Act or that there is a colourable exercise of powers. As the matter is pending consideration before the Judicial Officer, it would not be proper for me to dilate upon the question regarding validity, proof and justification for framing charges. (4). As the matter is pending consideration before the Judicial Officer, it would not be proper for me to dilate upon the question regarding validity, proof and justification for framing charges. (4). Sub-section (4) of S. 63 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of S. 63, the State Govt. may place under suspension a member against whom proceedings have been commenced u/s. 63 and that suspension order continues until the conclusion of the enquiry or passing of the final order. The result of suspension is that 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. Thus, as a result of the suspension order issued under sub-section(4) of S. 63 pending enquiry or till the final order is passed, the member shall be debarred from taking part in the proceedings of the Municipal Board or otherwise performing his duty as a member of the Board. Sub-section (4) cannot be read as giving unlimited power in the hands of the State to debar a member from performing his duties for all times to come. It is to be kept in mind that the member is ele-cted by the public and he is the representative of the public in the Municipal Board. His tenure is limited and he can act as a representative of the public for a fixed term. In the democratic set up, the elected member cannot be restrained from performing his duties for unlimited period without there being proved charge against him. He has a right to perform his duties as a member he being elected torepresent wish and will of the people. One has to read the inherited limitation of the authority in applying the powers under sub-section (4) debarring any elected member from performing his duties as such. The suspension should not result into a removal of the member, a power vested under sub-section (3) of s. 63 can be exercised after due and proper enquiry, by the State, as per the procedure prescri-bed for holding an enquiry into a charge against the member of a Municipal Board or Counselor of Municipal Council. The suspension should not result into a removal of the member, a power vested under sub-section (3) of s. 63 can be exercised after due and proper enquiry, by the State, as per the procedure prescri-bed for holding an enquiry into a charge against the member of a Municipal Board or Counselor of Municipal Council. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (2) and the order thereafter under sub- section (3) has to be passed after giving opportunity to the member to lead oral and documentary evidence and after consideration and giving due weight to the facts found on record. The order is re-quired to be a speaking order giving reasons for arriving at a particular logical conclusion. There is no equation between the order passed of suspending a member and order of removal of member. Proceeding for removal of a member may take a longer period but that should not result in continued suspension of the member until the enquiry is concluded or order is passed. The matter can be lookedinto from another angle. An enquiry is commenced against the member for his removal and continue for two years and ultimately the member is exonerated from all the charges framed against him, result would be, he will not be removed from membership, but what will happen to his suspension for two years, the period he could not function as member, he could not be relegated to the original position.The power to suspend a member could be held to be legal if it is for a limited period or some machinery is provided for review of the matter and extension thereafter of the suspension period of the member. Considering the term of the member of Board, reasonable period of suspension of member could be for six months from the date of suspension. An enquiry contemplated under sub-section (2) of S. 63 ofthe Act and the resultant order would be passed within the period of six months from the date of suspension of a member. For some reason or the other, the enquiry u/s 63(2) is not completed or order under sub-section (3) of S. 63 is not passed, that shall not come in the way of cessation of suspension order. For some reason or the other, the enquiry u/s 63(2) is not completed or order under sub-section (3) of S. 63 is not passed, that shall not come in the way of cessation of suspension order. On the day six months are completed from the date of suspension order, the suspension order of a mem-ber under Sub-section (4) of S. 63 of the Act shall come to an end. (5). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed but it is directed that if no order is passed against the petitioner u/s 63(3) of the Act within six months from 19.7.97, the suspension order shall stand revoked from 19.1.98.