JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner an elected member of Municipal Board, Nokha (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Board) has assailed validity of order dated 25.10.2007 issued by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 63(4) Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short "the Act of 1959" hereinafter) he has been placed under suspension. 2. In nutshell the relevant facts are that the petitioner was elected as member of the respondent Board in the elections held on 17.08.2005. One Shri Babu Lal who had lost election against the petitioner, submitted a complaint to the Director Local Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur with the allegation that the petitioner is connivance with the employees of the respondent Board prepared a concocted and false patta of plots No. 228 and 229 ad measuring 3200 sq. yard in the name of Indra Chand S/o Mool Chand Baid and obtained a certified copy thereof from the respondent Board. Thereafter, on the strength of the power of attorney obtained from the sons of Shri Indra Chand, he transferred the plot by way of sale deed in favour of his brother Narendra Kumar and got it registered with the Sub Registrar, Nokha on 20.01.2006. Later the said plot was sold by Narendra Kumar to Shri Bhanwar Lal S/o Bheru Lal Parakh and Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Parakh on 12.06.2007. It is stated in the complaint that in the patta of plots No. 228-229, the blanks have been filled in by ball pen whereas such pen was not even invented in the year 1959 and that all other pattas available in the Municipal Board are filled in by pen or holder, which can be verified from the record of the respondent Board. It was further pointed out that as per the patta issued, a sum of Rs. 900 was deposited in Tehsil office on 21.05.1959, whereas no such amount has been deposited with the Tehsil on the said date. That apart, the allegation was levelled that the details of the patta issued by TIC (i.e. Town Improvement Committee) at the relevant Lime used to be entered in a Kilta Register, however, it does not contain the entries regarding the allotment of the said plots in favour of Shri Inder Chand. 3. That apart, the allegation was levelled that the details of the patta issued by TIC (i.e. Town Improvement Committee) at the relevant Lime used to be entered in a Kilta Register, however, it does not contain the entries regarding the allotment of the said plots in favour of Shri Inder Chand. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Dy. Director (Regional) Local Bodies, Bikaner directed the Commissioner of the respondent Board to make an inquiry and submit the report. The Commissioner of the respondent Board vide communication dated 22.03.2007, 28.03.2007, 02.04.2007 and 07.04.2007, sought requisite information from the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid communications, the petitioner made his submissions vide communication dated 12.04.2007. After due inquiry the Commissioner of the respondent Board submitted the inquiry report to the Dy. Director (Regional), Local Bodies, Bikaner who in his turn vide communication dated 18.06.2007 forwarded the said inquiry report with his comments to the Assistant Director (vigilance) Local Bodies, Jaipur. Thereafter, vide notice dated 03.08.2007, the explanation of the petitioner was sought by the Dy-Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur in terms of Section 63(2) of the Act of 1959 regarding the allegations which were found to be prim facie proved by the Dy-Director (Regional), Local Bodies, Bikaner in the preliminary inquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the allegations levelled vide reply dated 20.08.2007 wherein, it was inter alia stated that the concocted and false inquiry report has been prepared against him, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. The explanation was also submitted with regard to the allegation of forgery and manipulation in the record levelled against him. II was stated that the allegations levelled against him are outcome of political vendetta and conspiracy planned by the Chairman of the respondent Board Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar, then Commissioner of the respondent Board Shri Maula Bux and complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain. II was stated that the allegations levelled against him are outcome of political vendetta and conspiracy planned by the Chairman of the respondent Board Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar, then Commissioner of the respondent Board Shri Maula Bux and complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, accordingly, while taking a decision to hold the judicial inquiry into the allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner, looking to the gravity of the charges it was not found desirable that the petitioner should continue on the post, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 63(4) of the Act 1959 vide impugned order dated 25.10.2007 issued by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, he was been placed under suspension. 4. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has already been served with the charge sheet dated 03.11.2007 and the Inquiry Officer has also been appointed to conduct the inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959. The petitioner has already put in appearance before the Inquiry Officer. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel Mr. S.L. Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned, has been passed by the State Government in mechanical manner without application of the mind. It is submitted that no reasons have been assigned as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been found satisfactory. The learned counsel submitted that vide notice dated 03.08.2007, the petitioner was informed that the explanation may be submitted within a period of 15 days else, the proceedings under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 shall be Initiated thus, it is manifestly clear that the notice seeking explanation was issued with a prior conclusion as to initiate the proceedings under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 and to place the petitioner under suspension. The learned counsel submitted that the power of attorney was executed in avour of the petitioner by sons of Shri Indra Chand on 20.11.2004, whereas, the petitioner was elected as member of the respondent Board on 20.08.2005, therefore, the allegation with regard to misuse of the office as member of the Board by the petitioner to grab the property in question is absolutely baseless. The learned counsel submitted that while initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any action against then Executive Officer of the respondent Board and other employees who are said to be in connivance with the petitioner in preparing a forged patta and issuing a certified copy thereof.The learned counsel submitted that besides the aforesaid complaint submitted before the Director, Local Bodies, the petitioner also lodged a FIR containing self same allegations in Police Station, Nokha, wherein a final report has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Court of competent jurisdiction, however, on the self same charges, Shri Babu Lal has submitted yet another complaint to the Anti Corruption Department which is pending investigation.Coming to the merit of the allegation, the learned counsel submitted that the complaint made against the petitioner is outcome of political vendetta. The learned counsel submitted that since Babu Lal had lost the election against the petitioner, therefore, he keeps enmity with him. The learned counsel submitted that the Chairman of the respondent Board also keeps enmity with the petitioner in as much as he raised objections regarding various illegalities being committed by him. The learned counsel submitted that on account of absence of the entries of the Kitta Register regarding allotment of the plots No. 228 and 229, no inference can be drawn that no allotment was made in favour of Shri Inder Chand at the relevant time. The learned counsel pointed out that in the Kitta Register so many entries are blank whereas, plots relating to those entries have been allotted to other persons. The learned counsel submitted that the price of the plot mentioned in the patta cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The learned counsel submitted that there are many other pattas wherein, the price of the plot has been mentioned more than Rs. 12.50. While relying upon the various documents placed on record, the learned counsel made an attempt to show that the allegation against the petitioner are baseless.Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that an elected representative cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner. 12.50. While relying upon the various documents placed on record, the learned counsel made an attempt to show that the allegation against the petitioner are baseless.Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that an elected representative cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner. The learned counsel urged that the inquiry into the allegation is being conducted by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge and there is no possibility of the petitioner tempering with the record, therefore, there is absolutely no reason as why the denizens of the ward concerned to whom he represents should be deprived of their representation in the respondent Board during the pendency of inquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the power of suspension vested in the State Government under Sec. 63(4) of the Act of 1959 deserves to be exercised sparingly with the care and caution. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Sohan Lal Mareja v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 626/2004, decided on 18.01.2005) ; Pradeep Hinger v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3740/2007, decided on 16.08.2007 and Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3729/2007 decided on 17.08.2007. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the order impugned passed by the State Government is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that admittedly, during the relevant period in town Nokha, the allotment of the land was being made by TIC. The first meeting of the said committee was held on 28.09.1951 under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Bikaner and the last meeting was held on 13.09.1959. The learned counsel submitted that from bare perusal of the minutes of the TIC, ever since its establishment from 28.09.1951 to 13.09.1959, it is manifestly clear that plots No. 228-229 situated at Maloo Chowk were never alloted/sold/transferred in favour of anybody. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that the land alloted to any person during the relevant period was used to be entered in Kitta (plots/bhukand) Register however, there is no entry regarding allotment of plots No. 228-229 in the said Register in favour of anybody. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that the land alloted to any person during the relevant period was used to be entered in Kitta (plots/bhukand) Register however, there is no entry regarding allotment of plots No. 228-229 in the said Register in favour of anybody. It is submitted that as per the patta of plots No. 228-229 got prepared by the petitioner and certified whereof has been issued to him by the respondent Board, the price of the plots, an amount of Rs. 900/- is said to have been deposited was not so deposited in the Tehsil Office. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being the member of the respondent Board having knowledge that plots No. 228-229 are vacant, by misusing his position in connivance with then Executive Officer and other staff of the respondent Board got prepared a forged patta in a counter foil available and thereafter, obtained the certified copy of the patta, not as a power of attorney holder of sons of Shri Inder Chand but, in his individual capacity for the purpose of evidence. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the photostat copy of the application submitted by the petitioner for the certified copy of the patta of plots No. 228 and 229, which has been placed on record as Annex. R/⅔. The learned counsel submitted that all the pattas issued during the relevant time, the blanks have been filled in either by use of pen or holder but the patta in question has been prepared by using the ball pen. The learned counsel submitted that description of plots in patta also does not tally with the description in pattas of other plots in the locality, allotted during the relevant period. The learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the material on record, it is apparent that the patta prepared, was got prepared by the petitioner with the connivance of then Executive Officer and other staff of the respondent Board. The learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the material on record, it is apparent that the patta prepared, was got prepared by the petitioner with the connivance of then Executive Officer and other staff of the respondent Board. The learned counsel submitted that in the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner having been found prima facie guilty, the proceeding initiated against him under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 and order placing the petitioner under suspension till the conclusion of the inquiry and passing of the final order passed by the competent authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.The learned counsel submitted that in the FIR lodged by Shri Bahu Lal with the Police Station, Nokha, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer inasmuch as the investigation has been taken over by the Anti Corruption Department. In this regard, the learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the concluding portion of the final report placed on record as Annex. 14.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no quarrel with the preposition of law that the power of suspension of an elected member of the Board vested in the State Government has to be exercised sparingly with care and caution. However, the learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, looking to the gravity of charges of misconduct found to be prima facie proved against the petitioner during the preliminary inquiry, it was rightly considered not to continue him in the office till the conclusion of inquiry and passing of the final order. The learned counsel submitted that the seriousness of the charges by itself is sufficient to show that the decision of the State Government to place him under suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 63(4) is absolutely justified. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Jan Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 463 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Jan Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 463 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Before entering into the merits of the present case, it will be beneficial to appreciate the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 which deals with removal and suspension of members of the Board and the legal position emerging from various decisions rendered by this Court examining the ambit and scope of provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959.As per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 63, the members of the Board can be removed on existence of any of the four contingencies enumerated in clauses (a) to (d). However, as per proviso to Section 63(1) a member of the Board can be removed from the office only after holding such inquiry as it may be considered necessary by the Slate Government, which can be made either by the State Government itself or through such existing or retired officer not below the rank of State level services or authority as it may direct and after the member concerned has been afforded an opportunity of explanation.As per sub-section (1A), the power, conferred by sub-section (1) can be exercised by the State Government of its own motion or upon the receipt of a report from the Board in that behalf or the facts otherwise coming to the knowledge of the State Government. However, proviso to sub-section (1A) specifically provides that subject to provisions contained in sub-section (4) until a member is removed from the office by an order of the State Government under this section, he shall not vacate his office and continue to act as and to exercise all powers and perform all duties of a member and shall as such be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a member under the Act.Sub-section (4) of Section 63 provides that the State Government may place under suspension a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under the said section, till conclusion of inquiry and 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 the members thereof.Thus, notwithstanding the commencement of the inquiry in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 against an elected member of the Board, ordinarily, he shall continue to be a member of the Board for all intend and purposes unless the State Government takes a decision to place him under suspension after commencement of the proceedings in terms of Section 63(4) of the Act of 1959.However, the conjoint reading of the provisions of sub-sections (1), (1A) and (4) makes the intention of the legislature abundantly clear that the power to suspend a member cannot be exercised by the Slate Government as a matter of course. Mere commencement of the proceedings under Sec. 63 does not make the State Government entitle to place an elected member under suspension. The State Government should arrived at a categorical finding that it is absolutely necessary to place the concerned elected member suspension till the conclusion of the inquiry and passing of the final order. 9. In the matter of Sohan Lal Mareja (supra), vide order dated 18.01.2005 the questions relating to scope and ambit of the power of the State Government to suspend an elected member, period for which suspension order remain in force, contours of power of the State to revoke order of suspension once it is made etc. 9. In the matter of Sohan Lal Mareja (supra), vide order dated 18.01.2005 the questions relating to scope and ambit of the power of the State Government to suspend an elected member, period for which suspension order remain in force, contours of power of the State to revoke order of suspension once it is made etc. have been referred by the Division Bench of this Court for decision to the Larger Bench;However the question as to whether power to suspend an elected member vested in the State Government in terms of Section 63(4) is absolute and whether an elected member can be suspended solely on subjective satisfaction of the State Government has been dealt with by the Division Bench in the matters referred supra, as under:- "One question that demands an answer is whether power to suspend an elected member against whom proceedings have commenced was a matter of absolute and subjective satisfaction of State solely the basis of commencement of proceedings? If so, then what was the need to enact proviso to sub-section (TA). In absence of sub-section (4) no power would have vested in State Government to suspend a Member on contemplation of inquiry and the incumbent would even without proviso to sub-section (1A) would have continued to hold the office and could not be asked to vacate the office until order removing him from office is made under sub-section (1). On the other hand, on enactment of sub-section (4) which enabled the State Government to suspend a member from the office on commencement of proceedings under Sec. 63, it would not need a separate declaration as has been made under proviso to sub-section (1-A). Another salient feature which emerges from the provision is that the power to remove a member from office enumerated under subsection (1) vests in the Slate Government by dint of sub-section (1) alone and no separate power is given as such on one or other grounds mentioned thereunder. Another salient feature which emerges from the provision is that the power to remove a member from office enumerated under subsection (1) vests in the Slate Government by dint of sub-section (1) alone and no separate power is given as such on one or other grounds mentioned thereunder. Thus whole som reading of sub-section(1) read with sub-section (2) prima facie suggests that ordinarily temporary removal from the office is not contemplated as a matter of course by resorting to subsection (4) simply on subjective satisfaction of the State about holding an enquiry into facts which may lead to removal of members under sub-section (1) of Section 63, or on mere commencement of proceedings contemplated under proviso to sub-section (1)." (emphasis added) xxxx xxxx xxxx Some peculiarities appear from the scheme of Act of 1959 in this regard. Firstly, it does not enable the Slate Government to place under suspension a member merely on contemplation of enquiry, it can only be inflicted after proceedings have commenced under Sec. 63. However, it uses the expression "be placed under suspension until the conclusion of enquiry 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". Thus, sub-section (4) in its literal sense provides the period up to which the order of suspension once made shall remain in force and also provides its effect as a rider to what has been provided under sub-section 1-A of Section 63 by ordaining that "member so suspended shall not be entitled to take pari in any proceedings of the Board or otherwise perform duties thereof". It entails an enquiry that once a suspension order is made it is required by the provision of the Statute to remain in force until conclusion of inquiry and passing of final order. It entails an enquiry that once a suspension order is made it is required by the provision of the Statute to remain in force until conclusion of inquiry and passing of final order. One view which commends itself is that ordinarily the member is not to be suspended unless there is proposal to remove is reached in terms of sub-section (2) and if it relates to such a conduct then continuance in the office is not considered in public interest if the proposal to removal is founded on such charges which has been reached by the State Government as a result of the State enquiry then until such elected members is cleared of such charges, it is desirable to keep the elected member away from further election office. With this object deliberately a provision has been made for duration of the period for which suspension order has to be made once it is made and that is why the provisions is not to suspend during pendency of the enquiry only, but emphasis that the member may be suspended until conclusion of inquiry and suffix with expression "and passing of final order contemplates specific provision that 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 conveys the expression which the legislation has attached to keep the elected Member away from the office until continuance of enquiry with final order. This also brings in inherent limitation on power to suspend only in very serious matters." (emphasis added) 10. This also brings in inherent limitation on power to suspend only in very serious matters." (emphasis added) 10. Similarly, in the matter of Smt. Virnla Devi (supra), this Court after due consideration of the various judgments of this Court dealing with suspension of an elected member of the Board in exercise of power conferred by Section 63(4) of the Act of 1959 observed as under:- "The basic philosophy to keep the authority of an elected representative of people in absence by way of suspension is that his acts on face appears against the interest of people and his/her continuation in office may effect the process of investigation, hence, in every case where State desire to exercise powers under Sec. 64(4) of the Act of 1959, it must satisfy, itself that a fair inquiry shall be reasonably impracticable without exercising such powers, and the satisfaction so arrived must be recorded though it is not required to be communicated to the person concerned till demanded. What it appears that the State Government in every case where a decision is taken to hold an inquiry as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 in quite routine manner places the delinquent under suspension. The theory of suspension as applicable in service jurisprudence cannot and should not be imposed or adopted in the matters relating to the elected persons." 11. In Jan Mohammad's case (supra) also, Division Bench of this Court has observed that the holders of the elective public posts cannot be equated with Government servants and therefore, before a holder of an elected post is suspended, the Government must have sufficient reasons to do so. Care should be taken that such suspension should not be arbitrary and the suspension of such elected representatives should not be brought about for political motives or consideration. 12. Care should be taken that such suspension should not be arbitrary and the suspension of such elected representatives should not be brought about for political motives or consideration. 12. Thus, on the basis of the legal position settled by this Court as aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that before placing an elected member of the Board under suspension in terms of Section 63(4) of the Act of 1959 which amounts to temporary removal, the State Government has to arrive at a reasonable and objective satisfaction regarding his involvement in such misconduct which may entail his removal from the office in terms of Section 63(1) of the Act of 1959 and his continuance in office pending inquiry and until passing of the final order is considered undesirable. 13. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the allegation levelled against the petitioner are that using his position as member of the Board, with the connivance of the Executive Officer and the staff members of the respondent Board got prepared a false and fabricated patta in the name of Shri Inder Chand, who happens to be his relative, obtained the certified copy of the patta in his individual capacity and thereafter, transferred the plots in question on the strength of the certified copy so obtained in favour of his own brother Shri Narendra Kumar Bohra as power of attorney holder of sons of Shri Inder Chand and later the said plots were sold by Shri Narendra Kumar to Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Virnla Devi.Admittedly, a preliminary inquiry was conducted into the charges of allegation levelled against the petitioner wherein, inter alia it was found that the no allotment of the plots was ever made in favour of Shri Inder Chand by the TIC during the relevant period from 28.09.1951 to 13.09.1959. It has also come on record that in the Kitta Register wherein the details of the plot allotted during the relevant period of the TIC was used to be entered, the entries of allotment of the said plots in favour of Shri Inder Chand is not there. That apart, the price paid for the plots is not found to be deposited in the Tehsil during the relevant period. That apart, the price paid for the plots is not found to be deposited in the Tehsil during the relevant period. There are discrepancies in the description of the plots set out in the patta said to be issued in favour of Inder Chand and other pattas issued at the relevant time.However, the validity of the charge sheet is not impugned in the present writ petition. Though, both the parties have raised the arguments regarding correctness or falsity of allegation hut, this Court is not required to delve into all these questions inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner are subject matter of inquiry already commenced and are being inquired into by the competent authority appointed by the State Government in terms of Section 63(2) of the Act of 1959. 14. This Court is only required to examine as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the State Government placing the petitioner under suspension till the conclusion of the inquiry and passing of the final order, is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. 15. A perusal of the relevant record produced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan shows that on the basis of the inquiry report of the Commissioner forwarded by the Dy. Director, Local Bodies vide communication dated 18.06.2007 with his comments, the Assistance Director (Vig.), Local Bodies prepared a note that the petitioner herein is found to be prima facie guilty in relation to issuance of the forged "patta" of plots No. 228-229. The note as aforesaid appears to have been submitted before the Director, Local Bodies, Secretary, Local Self and Minister, Local Self, Government of Rajasthan. After the signatures of the concerned, there is a noting of seeking an explanation from the petitioner within a period of 15 days.After the submission of the explanation of the petitioner again a note appears to have been submitted by the Assistant Director (Vig.), Local Bodies that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the allegations, levelled is not satisfactory, therefore, a judicial inquiry under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 is proposed. After perusal of the inquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner the competent authority, the Minister concerned has passed an order for holding a judicial inquiry under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 so also for placing the petitioner under suspension in the following terms: " mifuns'kd {ks=h; LFkkuh; fudk; foHkkx chdkusj ls izkIr izkFkfed tkap fjiksVZ esa Jh egsUnz dqekj Hkwjk] ik"knZ] u0ik0 uks[kk izFke n`"V;k nks"kh ik;s x;s gSA blh izdj.k esa Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjksa esa Hkh tkap py jgh gSA Jh egsUnz dqekj Hkwjk ls izkIr mRrj larks"kizn ,oa ekU; ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% izdj.k dh jkt0 u0ik0 vf/kfu;e 1959 dh /kkjk 63 ds varxZr U;kf;d tkap djkbZ tkosa rFkk tkap izHkkfor u gks] bl gsrq bUgsa rqjUr izHkko ls fuyfEcr fd;k tkosa ,oa izdj.k esa dsfo;V Hkh nk;j djkosA " Accordingly, vide order dated 25.10.2007, issued by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. 16. From bare perusal of the order passed by the Minister concerned available on record produced for perusal of this Court, it is manifestly clear that the competent authority has merely recorded its ipse dixit that the petitioner has been found prima facie guilty in the preliminary inquiry and the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and not acceptable, and further while passing an order for holding judicial inquiry, the petitioner has been ordered to be placed under suspension, lest he may not influence the inquiry. Thus, the sole reason assign for placing the petitioner under suspension is that on account of his continuance in the office, the inquiry is likely to be influenced. 17. It is to be noticed that the instant case, the inquiry is being conducted by a Judicial Office of the rank of District Judge and all relevant, record has already been submitted by the respondent Board before the inquiry officer, therefore, the apprehension that the petitioner may temper with the record or influence the inquiry in any manner is ill founded. In my considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that on account of petitioner's continuance in the office, the inquiry is likely to be influenced or affected adversely in any manner. In my considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that on account of petitioner's continuance in the office, the inquiry is likely to be influenced or affected adversely in any manner. Thus, the only reason assign by the competent authority for placing the petitioner under suspension is not sustainable in eye of law. 18. It is to be noticed that there is apparent variance in the reasons for suspension recorded by the competent authority while passing the order as aforesaid and the reasons incorporated in the impugned suspension order issued by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Minister concerned. In the order impugned, it is mentioned that looking to the seriousness of the charges, it is not desirable to continue the petitioner in the office as Member of Municipal Board, Nokha. In my considered opinion, the Dy. Secretary, who has issued the order of suspension in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority had no authority to introduce his own reasons for placing the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the order impugned deserves to be set aside for this reason alone. 19. As laid down by the Division Bench in Sohan Lal Mareja's case (supra), if the charges levelled against an elected member are of such a serious nature that it is desirable to keep away from the elective office till such member is cleared of the such charges then, in the public interest he can he placed under suspension until the conclusion of the inquiry and till passing of the final order. However, in the instant case, the competent authority has not arrived at any such conclusion after due application of the mind, therefore, merely because such reason has been incorporated in the order by the authority issuing the order in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has been ordered to be placed under the suspension considering the charges levelled against him, of being serious nature. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which is relevant to be noticed. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which is relevant to be noticed. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that while taking an action against the petitioner who is an elected representative, no action has been taken by the State Government against then Executive Officer and order employees of the respondent Board who are alleged to be guilty of preparing false and fabricated patta. The learned counsel apprised the Court that though, during the pendency of this petition, then Executive Officer of the respondent Board was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.11.2007 but, the said suspension order has also been revoked. This factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 21. It is to be noticed that while submitting the report after preliminary inquiry, the recommendations were made to take appropriate proceedings against then Executive Officer and other employees of the respondent Board, Moreover, when it is the categorical stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner has got prepared the false and fabricated patta in connivance with then Executive Officer and other employees of the Board then, there is absolutely no reason why the appropriate disciplinary action should not be initiated against the delinquent employees. It is expected that the Secretary, Local Self Department shall look in to the matter and take appropriate action against all the officials who are found to be prima facie involved in fabricating the patta and manipulating the record. 22. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned issued by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner in the public interest, it is desirable that the inquiry into the charges levelled against him, should be completed expeditiously. 23. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25.10.2007 (Annex.-12) issued by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the Inquiry Officer is directed to complete the inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order. The impugned order dated 25.10.2007 (Annex.-12) issued by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the Inquiry Officer is directed to complete the inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order. The competent authority shall pass the final order within a period of two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******