Honble SHETHNA, J.–Petitioner-Miss Indu Meena belonging to Scheduled Tribe has challenged in this petition the impugned order of suspension at Annexure-9 dated 19.5.99 passed by the respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers u/S. 38(4) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. (2). Mr. Jakhar learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that Men dominated society of this State and particularly of the concerned village were not happy with the petitioner becoming Sarpanch at an young age of 23 yrs. and that she is a lady belonging to a caste of Scheduled Tribe i.e. `Meena. She was not allowed to work as `Sarpanch by the persons who were against her since election to the post of `Sarpanch. She was earlier forced to approach this Court twice and now for the third time by way of this writ petitions. She has successfully filed two writ petitions which were allowed in her favour by the Court. He submitted that when all attempts failed they resorted to suspension, suspending her from the post of Sarpanch by misusing the powers u/s. 38 (4) of the Act. (3). Ms. Kusum Rao appearing for the respondents, however, vehemently submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer are of a serious nature which necessitated suspension of the petitioner. She further submitted that on previous occasion also she (petitioner) was warned, but she had not improved, therefore, she is suspended. Miss Rao submitted that under the circumstances this Court should not interfere with suspension order and it should dismiss this petition. (4). Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the order of suspension of a Sarpanch who is suspended by the authority u/s. 38(4) of the Act. However, this is an exceptional case where this Court is forced to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. It may be stated that in the past almost on similar charges the petitioner was simply cautioned but never suspended. It appears that male members of the Gram Panchayat were not happy with her election as `Sarpanch therefore, they tried to get ``no confidence motion passed against her. It may be stated that in the past almost on similar charges the petitioner was simply cautioned but never suspended. It appears that male members of the Gram Panchayat were not happy with her election as `Sarpanch therefore, they tried to get ``no confidence motion passed against her. Against which writ petition No. 3986/98 was filed by the petitioner and this Court had to interfere and the impugned decision taken in the meeting of passing ``no confidence motion against the petitioner on 12.10.98 was quashed by this Court and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad was directed to convene a meeting on 28.12.98 for considering ``no confidence motion against the petitioner and accordingly the meeting was convened on 28.12.98. It is pertinent to note that this move of the otherside to displace her by passing ``no confidence motion miserably failed, which was not tolerated by the male members of the Gram Panchayat and they were determined to oust her from the post of Sarpanch anyhow. It clearly appears that the respondent No. 2 is prevailed upon by them in passing the impugned order of suspension on 19.5.99 on the basis of chargesheet prepared against the petitioner on 4.3.99. (5). It may be stated that before passing the order of suspension the petitioner 40 was called upon to give an explanation to the chargesheet. She asked for one months time and also asked for copies of documents, but instead of affording her an opportunity and providing copies of documents the suspension order was passed in haste by the respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers u/s. 38 (4) of the Act, which is nothing but colourable exercise of powers and against the principle 45 of natural justice. (6). Under the circumstances there is no option for this Court but to allow this petition and accordingly this petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension at `Annexure/9 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed that the charge of the post of Gram Panchayat Marwar Junction be immediately handed 50 over to the petitioner by the respondents and she be allowed to work as `Sarpanch as if suspension order was never passed. (7). It is made clear that if the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner then they can proceed against her and pass only in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 55