JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Virendra Modi was elected member of Municipal Board, Sirohi and thereafter became Chairman of the Board in November, 1999. He was given notice Anx. 1 dated 6-11-2001 under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to show cause with regard to different complaints made against him. He submitted reply of the notice Anx. 2 dated 2- 4-2002. The respondents were not satisfied and after framing six charges referred the matter for judicial inquiry vide Anx. 3 dated 18-6-2002. 2. Again complaints were received against the petitioner and a show cause notice Anx. 4 dated 26-2-2002 was also issued to him which was also denied by the petitioner vide Anx. 5 dated 4-7-2002. Anx. 6 dated 15-6-2002 was another show cause notice issued to the petitioner which was also replied vide Anx. 7 dated 4-7-2002 denying all the allegations made against the petitioner. Apprehending suspension the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2296/02 on 10-7-2002 upon which notices were issued by this Court on 12-7-2002 returnable on 23-7-2002. The petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 63(4) of the Act vide Anx. 8 dated 23-7-2002. On the same day charges levelled against the petitioner were also forwarded to the Judicial Officer conducting the judicial inquiry under Section 63(2) of the Act. By this petition Anx. 8 has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia among other grounds that the petitioner belongs to BJP and various developmental works undertaken by the petitioner has offended the local congress MLA who have not left any stone unturned to oust the petitioner from the office of the Chairperson of the Board and has levelled frivolous, false and baseless allegations against the petitioner. Though all the charges were denied by the petitioner. Though all the charges were denied by the petitioner showing that he has not acted with any disgraceful conduct and he has not become incapable of performing his duties nor had he flagrantly abused his position as a Chairperson. Whatever action has been taken by the petitioner are strictly within the four corners of law yet on total unfounded and baseless allegations the petitioner has been put under suspension. According to the petitioner his suspension was highly arbitrary and unreasonable. Whatever action has been taken by the petitioner are strictly within the four corners of law yet on total unfounded and baseless allegations the petitioner has been put under suspension. According to the petitioner his suspension was highly arbitrary and unreasonable. Time and again he has been harassed by issuing series of notices which is a clear case of colourable exercise of power by the respondents. The allegations made against the petitioner in notices referred above are prima facie frivolous, fictitious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the same shall be quashed. 3. The respondents have denied all the averments of the petition and have submitted that the charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved prima facie in preliminary inquiry which involved serious financial irregularities and abuse and misuse of the office of the Chairman. In order to ensure fair and impartial inquiry the petitioner has been put under suspension else the petitioner may influence the employees of the Board and may also interfere with the ocular and documentary evidence available in the Board. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 5. Power of suspension has been given to the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the Act which reads as under : "(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." 6. In the instant case suspension was ordered on the ground that the petitioner misused/ abused his office of Chairman of the Board and have committed numerous financial irregularities without complying with necessary formalities. Some of the charges were pertaining to the inaction, apathy and action of the petitioner causing the immense losses to the Board. There were complaints of selling lands showing them as pieces of land to his own relatives without undertaking the legal procedure. One of the charges was that on 13-2-2002 one Disha Jain submitted an application for allotment of land measuring 47.25 sq.ft. There were complaints of selling lands showing them as pieces of land to his own relatives without undertaking the legal procedure. One of the charges was that on 13-2-2002 one Disha Jain submitted an application for allotment of land measuring 47.25 sq.ft. and before such allotment the State Government ought to have consulted as per the Rules and the matter should have been put up before the Administrative Committee but the petitioner accorded permission straightway for allotment of that land. Similarly, the petitioner accorded the permission of construction without taking up the procedure for change of the nature of the land and huge loss was caused to the State Government. There was ban on purchase of air conditioner vide circular dated 13-2-2002 yet the petitioner purchased an air conditioner for his own office. After preliminary inquiry all the complaints made against the petitioner were prima facie found proved and, therefore, while issuing charges for the third time and referring the matter for judicial inquiry he was simultaneously put under suspension. 7. It is an established legal position that suspension or removal of a Chairman or member of the Board cannot be equated with Government servants against whom disciplinary action is taken. Before a person holding elected post is suspended the Government must give sufficient reasons to do so. Care should be taken that such suspension should not be arbitrary and should not be brought about for political motives or considerations. Enough safeguards have been provided so that no arbitrary, capricious or mala fide suspension can take place. The Collector is an authority delegated and empowered by the State Government who must apply the mind and use the discretion in a perfect judicious manner. While applying the discretion it is expected from him that after applying his mind he has acted with due diligence keeping in view the seriousness of the charges so levelled. 8. In the matter at hand petitioner's explanation has been sought and thereafter preliminary inquiries have been conducted in which prima facie all the allegations were found proved and twice numerous charges were levelled against the petitioner and the same were forwarded for judicial inquiry. At this stage the merits of the charges cannot be examined in details else it may effect the judicial inquiry. But prima facie the charges cannot be said to be false, frivolous or baseless. 9. At this stage the merits of the charges cannot be examined in details else it may effect the judicial inquiry. But prima facie the charges cannot be said to be false, frivolous or baseless. 9. In Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (2) Rajasthan LR 540 , it was held that the authorities are expected to place an elected representative of people under suspension with great care, caution and circumspection strictly in accordance with statutory provisions contemplated under Section 63 of the Act because suspension of such elected representatives tantamounts to degrading his status and lowering down his reputation in the estimation of public during the period of suspension causing irreparable loss to his public life which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 10. In Rakesh Ghatiwal v. State of Rajasthan, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1544/2000, decided on 26-5-2000 (reported in 2001 (1) Raj. LW 540) , this Court was dealing with an identical matter because an elected member of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur was put under suspension pending judicial inquiry after a preliminary inquiry and levelling of charges. This Court held that suspension of a public representative is a matter of serious concern because the duly elected person losses his status during the suspension period and the loss is of such immense nature that it cannot be compensated in terms of money or the harm cannot be undone by any other means. Therefore, the suspension order should be passed with great care and circumspection after fairly and properly dealing with the reply of the petitioner given in response to the show cause notice. In a democratic set up the duly elected person is to be considered entirely on a different pedestal than the Government employee. The gravity of charges against him should be of high magnitude warranting suspension of erring elected officer. 11. In Dr. Chandra Bose v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (3) Raj LR 63 the Chairperson of the Municipal Board was put under suspension by the State Government. The charges levelled against the petitioner raised disputed questions of fact but before passing the suspension order mandatory provisions of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 63 of the Act have been followed. Therefore, the suspension order was upheld. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Jan Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan. The charges levelled against the petitioner raised disputed questions of fact but before passing the suspension order mandatory provisions of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 63 of the Act have been followed. Therefore, the suspension order was upheld. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Jan Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan. 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 463 was also dealing with suspension and removal of an elected Chairman of the Municipal Board. The plea of the petitioner there was also akin to the present one that on account of political reasons the ruling party always tried to remove the petitioner from the Chairmanship. The inquiry was conducted with regard to works executed by the board against the petitioner and after preliminary reports the petitioner has been put under suspension. After dealing with numerous pronouncements dealing with suspension of elected persons the Division Bench held that suspension shall take place after due application of mind on report of preliminary inquiry. If a preliminary inquiry is conducted by a responsible officer and the report supported, by the documentary and oral evidence is considered and by due application of mind the Government comes to the conclusion that holding of office by such delinquent against whom allegations of misconduct, flagrant abuse of powers and disgraceful conduct is prima facie proved, he can be put under suspension. Merely because ministers contemplating suspension belong to different political parties does not mean that there is prejudice against the petitioner. 13. In Chhagan Kanwar Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (1) Raj LR 718 the Court was dealing with suspension of the Chairman/Member of the Board and held that before passing suspension order explanation of the Chairman/Member.is not necessary. Framing of charges under Section 63(2) of the Act is also not needed before passing suspension order. According to the Court when Government decides to issue show cause notice it has power to suspend the Chairman/Member of the board simultaneously. 14. Keeping in view the afore stated legal aspects in mind. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar vis-a-vis the complaints made against the petitioner, his reply so filed and the charges levelled against him. Prima facie it cannot be said that the charges were false, frivolous or baseless or that the State Government has passed the impugned order in a casual and cavalier manner to reck vengeance on the petitioner. Prima facie it cannot be said that the charges were false, frivolous or baseless or that the State Government has passed the impugned order in a casual and cavalier manner to reck vengeance on the petitioner. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. The same stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******