ORDER:- The petitioner, Smt. Vimla Vyas, having been elected as Member of the Municipal Board, Merta City and• then as Chairperson of the said Municipal Board but having been removed from the Office of Chairperson and as Member of the Board after a judicial enquiry and having also been debarred from contesting the elections for next six years, challenges such action of the State Government by way of this writ petition. 2. Briefly put, the background facts and aspects of the matter are that the petitioner Smt. Vimla Vyas, after being' elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Merta City, came to be elected to the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal 'Board. The petitioner was, however, put' under suspension by an order made by the State Government on 15-11-2006 (Annex.1) in contemplation of enquiry under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). Aggrieved of such suspension order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition to this Court, being CWP N6 6647/2006, wherein an interim was passed on 29-11-2006 (Annex. 3) staying the operation of the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annex. 4), leveling the allegation that she failed to call for a requisite meeting and in the meeting as convened on 27-2-2006, failed to incorporate in the allegation items a representation made by certain concillors. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry pursuant to the said charge-sheet is still pending. 3. However, the State Government again placed the petitioner under suspension by the order dated Ilt6-2007 (Annex. 5) with the observations\that in view of the preliminary enquiry on other allegations, it was decided to put that latter to judicial enquiry, and for the likelihood of interference with the enquiry proceedings, she was required to be placed under suspension. 4. It appears that the petitioner was served with another charge-sheet with 7 charges, essentially on the allegations of financial irregularities and causing substantial loss to the funds of the Board in the matters relating, to: (1) purchase of road-lights; (2) purchase of timer-switches; (3) contract for maintenance of road-lights; (4) contract for erection of welcome boards, (5) purchase of garbage boxes; (6) purchase of iron tree-guards; and (7) publication of various advertisements in newspapers. 5. So far the. 5. So far the. Sus-pension order as passed by the State Government on 11-6-2007 was concerned, the same was put to challenge by the petitioner, by way of another writ petition, being CWP No. 3729/2007, that came to be allowed on 1'7-8-2007 (Annex. 6). This Court despaired the suspension of the petitioner, the respondents were directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously, and the Government was also required to pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report expeditiously; and the entire process of enquiry including consideration of enquiry report and action thereon was to be completed within a period 'of four months. This Court said,- "Accordingly', 'this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 11-6-2007 is -quashed to the extent it relates to suspension of the petitioner from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Merta City. Consequent there to the petitioner stands restored as Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Merta city. The respondents as well as the inquiry officer are directed to conclude the inquiry expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the respondents and the inquiry officer for expeditious conclusion of the inquiry. In the event, the petition do not co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry officer may record the reason and proceed ex parte strictly in accordance with law and inquiry officer for expeditious conclusion of the inquiry. In the event, the petitioner do not co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry officer may record the reasons and proceed ex parte strictly in accordance with law and submit his report to the Government. The Government shall also pass' appropriate order on the said report expeditiously. The entire process of inquiry including the consideration of inquiry report and action thereon is expected to be concluded within a period of four months from today." 6. The petitioner has pointed out that after the decision of this Court, she was asked to and did appear before the Enquiry Officer wherein the record was called and statements of three witnesses. Bhagwati Prasad. Member of the Municipal Board Jassa Ram. Executive Officer of the Municipal Board and Abdul Aziz Pathan. an Independent Member of the Municipal Board were recorded as P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. It is pointed out that in order to controvert the charges levelled, the petitioner got examined herself and further examined the witness Moti Lal as D.W.2. Bhagwati Prasad. Member of the Municipal Board Jassa Ram. Executive Officer of the Municipal Board and Abdul Aziz Pathan. an Independent Member of the Municipal Board were recorded as P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. It is pointed out that in order to controvert the charges levelled, the petitioner got examined herself and further examined the witness Moti Lal as D.W.2. The learned Enquiry Officer proceeded to record his findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner in the enquiry report dated 4-12-2007, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-10. 7. In View of the grounds urged and to be considered in this writ petition, dilatation on all the findings on the charges aforesaid does not appear necessary; and suffice is to notice that the Enquiry Officer found that the department had been able to substantiate charges Nos.1 to 4 against the delinquent but had failed to establish charges Nos. 5 to 7. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that after conclusion of the enquiry and preparation of the enquiry report, she was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer and in those circumstances, she submitted an application under the provisions of Right, to Information Act while depositing a fees of Rs. 10/- under the receipt dated 7-12-2007 (Annex. 11). It is further the case of the petitioner that she neither received the copy of the enquiry report nor any notice from the Government seeking her explanation on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; and directly an order came to be issued on 26-12-2007 (Annex. 12) removing her from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Merta City. In fact, by the order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex. 12), the petitioner was not only removed from the office of the Chairperson but was also removed as a Member of the Municipal Board and was further declared disqualified to contest elections for next six years. The impugned order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex.12) reads as. under:- (Vernacular matter omitted.... Ed.) 9. The petitioner has averred that in the aforesaid circumstances, she approached the office of the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Drafting & Enquiry Officer. Law Department, Jaipur again, seeking a copy of the enquiry report and then, a copy of the enquiry report was made available to her on 28-12-2007 upon payment officers of Rs. 58/- under the receipt dated 28-12-2007 (Annex.13). The petitioner has averred that in the aforesaid circumstances, she approached the office of the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Drafting & Enquiry Officer. Law Department, Jaipur again, seeking a copy of the enquiry report and then, a copy of the enquiry report was made available to her on 28-12-2007 upon payment officers of Rs. 58/- under the receipt dated 28-12-2007 (Annex.13). Noteworthy it is that the photo copy of the enquiry report (placed on the record of this writ petition as Annexure-10) was indeed certified to by a true copy only on 2712-2007. 10. In continuity of the order dated 2612-2007 (Annex. 12) removing the petitioner from the office of the Chairperson and as a Member of the said Municipal Board, the State Government proceeded to issue another order (Annex. 14) of the even date, i.e. 26-12-2007. in exercise of its powers under• Section 69-A of the Act of 1959 directing the charge of the office of Chairperson to be held for a period of one month by Smt. Shakuntala wife of Navratan Mal, Member of the said Municipal Board from Ward No. 19. 11. Stating herself aggrieved of the charge-sheet (Annex. 4), of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the report (Annex.10), and of the orders passed by the State Government on 26-12-2007 (Annexs.12 & 14), removing her and appointing Smt. Shakuntala Singhvi as Officiating Chairperson, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 3-1-2008. It was essentially been contended in this writ petition that the impugned order as passed by the State Government removing the petitioner from the office remain highly arbitrary and illegal; that before taking any action on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, neither the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor was she given the opportunity to make a representation against such report, that the Government failed to pass a speaking order after due application of mind on the enquiry report, that the findings and the conclusions as reached by the Enquiry Officer remain baseless where the relevant provisions of the Rules and the fact situation of the case have not been considered. However, in view of the limited submissions made during the course of arguments, the grounds as urged in relation to the merits of the charges and the findings thereupon are not being dilated in this order. 12. However, in view of the limited submissions made during the course of arguments, the grounds as urged in relation to the merits of the charges and the findings thereupon are not being dilated in this order. 12. This writ petition was considered on 7 -1-2008; and a caveat having been entered by the Additional Advocate General, this Court directed a copy of the petition to be supplied and ordered the matter to be placed on 14-1-2008. After a few adjournments, on 15-2-2008, an application (LA. No. 1821/ 2008) was considered by this Court as made by the applicants Bhagwati Prasad Pareek and Shahid Akhtar seeking their impleadment in this writ petition essentially on the grounds that they had been the complainants and the enquiry was held and the petitioner was removed from the office upon their complaint; and that the respondents may not bring all the facts before the Court. This Court expressed the opinion that the said applicants were not to be impleaded but could be allowed to intervene in the matter and the application was accordingly disposed of. 13. After a few more adjournment, when the matter came up before the Court on 244-2008, yet another application (IA No.3988/2008) was considered wherein two applicants, Motilal Mali and Moti ram Meghwal, said to be the Members of the said Municipal Board from Ward No.4 and Ward No.1 respectively sought impleadment in this writ petition while again Levelling the allegations that there had been serious charges of misuse of public funds against the petitioner and that the applicants entertained an apprehension that due to pressure and approach, the officers-in-charge would not bring true and correct facts to the notice of the Court. The said application came to be rejected by this Court on 24-4-2008 while finding that the Members of the Municipal Board have no right to intermeddle. After a few further adjournments, the matter was considered on 12-11-2008 and this Court proceeded to admit this writ petition after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. However, the prayer for interim relief was declined particularly after noticing the fact that the impugned order was passed as back as on 26-12-2007 and there had not been in operation any interim order until then; but looking to the subject-matter. 1 to 3. However, the prayer for interim relief was declined particularly after noticing the fact that the impugned order was passed as back as on 26-12-2007 and there had not been in operation any interim order until then; but looking to the subject-matter. it was directed that the matter be placed for final hearing at orders stage after the respondent No.4 was served and the Additional Advocate General was required to keep available before the Court the entire record relating to the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner at the time of final hearing. 14. Thereafter, another application (IA No.15552/2008), as moved on 11-11-2008, was dealt with by the office, and when placed for consideration on 15-1-2009, this Court directed that the same be kept pending to be heard at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Thereafter, learned counsel for the parties were heard on 26-2-2009 on the merits of the writ petition and so also on the said application (IA No. 15552/2008). 15. After narrating the factual background, learned counsel Mr. P.S. Bhati appearing for the petitioner has essentially put forward the contentions that the impugned order dated 26-12-2007 removing the petitioner from the office remains entirely illegal and deserves to be quashed particularly for being contrary to the requirements of law and being in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel elaborated on the submissions that by the decision of this Court as rendered in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1999 Rajasthan 47, Ram Niwas Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (2) RLR 10 : ( AIR 2000 Raj 318 ) and the recent one in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6067/2008, decided on 4-2-2009, the law is settled that in such matters, the copy of the enquiry report is mandatory required to be supplied to the delinquent before passing of any order by the State Government; and the delinquent is required to be afforded an opportunity to make representation against such enquiry report. Learned counsel submitted that requirement of supplying a copy of the enquiry report is not only inbuilt in the scheme of the proceedings to be undertaken by the Enquiry Officer and the orders to be passed by the State Government but remains settled as a mandatory requirement as, per decisions of this Court and so also under the Notification dated 11-11-1959 as, amended by the other Notification dated 30-9-2000 whereby the State Government has prescribed a pro-