ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 17.11.16 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, placing the petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lavan, under suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Section 38(4) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner has also questioned legality of inquiry initiated under Section 38(1) by issuing charge sheet dated 17.11.16 under Rule 22(2) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). 2. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal proceeding in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial against her before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran. The charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 17.11.16 read as under : ^^vkjksi la[;k 1%& ;g gS fd vki Jherh xqM~Mh ikyhoky ljiap xzke iapk;r yaok iapk;r lfefr lkadMk ftyk tSlyesj }kjk QthZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds nLrkost izLrqr djus ds vk/kkj ij ljiap xzke iapk;r yaok dk pquko yM+k x;k ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r yaok ds in ij fuokZfpr ?kksf"kr gqbZ] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k 2%& izdj.k la[;k 437@2015 esa ekuuh; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVs~V] iksdj.k ftyk tSlyesj }kjk fnukad 30-05-2016 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr vkjksi fojfpr dj fn;s x;s gSaA vkidk mDr d`R; vidhfrZdj vkpj.k ,oa uSfrd iru v/kerk ls vUroZfyr vopkj dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k 3%& vki }kjk QthZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij ljiap xzke iapk;r yaok dks pquko yM+us ,oa mDr in ij fuokZfpr gksus ds izdj.k esa iapk;rhjkt vf/kfu;e 1994 dh /kkjk 38@1 ds vUrxZr lEHkkxh; vk;qDr tks/kiqj ds Lrj ij tkWap yfEcr gS] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA** 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension inasmuch as, the charges were framed by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction against her for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, however, vide order dated 3.1.17 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Revision Petition No.53/16, the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran framing the charges against petitioner stands set aside and the matter stands remanded for consideration afresh and thus, as on the date, no trial is pending against the petitioner in the court of law and therefore, the order impugned placing the petitioner under suspension deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran framing the charges having been set aside, the charge no. 2 levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 17.11.16 does not survive. It is submitted that so far as charge no.1 is concerned, it already stand settled by this court that pre election disqualification cannot be inquired into under Section 39 of the Act and therefore, the inquiry initiated against the petitioner in respect of pre election disqualification is ex facie without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in 'Smt. Sameera Bano v. State of Rajasthan', 2007 (2) RLW 1674 and a coordinate Bench decision of Jaipur Bench of this court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No.16070/15 'Bhupendra Singh Hada v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'. Learned counsel submitted that charge no.3 as framed does not constitute a charge of misconduct. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned charge sheet deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Additional Government Counsel submitted that if the charges of moral turpitude are framed against an elected representative of Panchayati Raj Institution, the State Government is empowered to initiate the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act. However, it is not disputed by the learned AGC that in view of the decision of this court in Sameera Bano's case and Bhupendra Singh's case (supra), the pre election disqualification cannot be inquired into by resorting to the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. However, it is not disputed by the learned AGC that in view of the decision of this court in Sameera Bano's case and Bhupendra Singh's case (supra), the pre election disqualification cannot be inquired into by resorting to the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. Learned AGC submitted that if this court comes to the conclusion that in view of setting aside of the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran, the suspension order as also the charge sheet issued cannot be sustained then the State Government may be given liberty to initiate the proceedings afresh, if the charges are framed by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner pursuant to the remand order passed by the revisional court. Learned counsel fairly submitted that the charge no.3 as framed, does not constitute the charge of misconduct. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of the pendency of the trial against her for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction. But then, the order passed by the court framing the charges against the petitioner having been set aside by the revisional court as on the date, no trial is pending against the petitioner inasmuch as, the trial commences after the framing of the charges and thus, the order passed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 38(4) on the ground of pendency of trial against the petitioner for offences involving moral turpitude is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. It is the common ground between the parties that keeping in view the Full Bench decision of this court in Sameera Bano's case and a coordinate Bench decision of Jaipur Bench of this court in Bhupendra Singh Hada's case (supra), the matter with regard to pre election disqualification cannot be inquired into by the State Government under Section 39 of the Act and therefore, the charge sheet issued in respect thereof cannot be sustained. As noticed herein above, the charges framed against the petitioner by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction stands set aside and thus, the inquiry initiated in respect of the charge no.2 is also not sustainable. It is not disputed that the charge no.3 as framed, does not constitute charge of misconduct. As noticed herein above, the charges framed against the petitioner by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction stands set aside and thus, the inquiry initiated in respect of the charge no.2 is also not sustainable. It is not disputed that the charge no.3 as framed, does not constitute charge of misconduct. In this view of the matter, as on the date, the inquiry initiated against the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act cannot be continued and the impugned charge sheet deserves to be quashed. Obviously, if the charges are framed by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner for the offences involving moral turpitude pursuant to the remand order passed by the revisional court, the State Government shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. 8. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 17.11.16 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department placing the petitioner under suspension and the charge sheet dated 17.11.16 issued under Rule 22(2) of the Rules, initiating inquiry against the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act, are quashed. The State Government shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Act if the charges for offences involving moral turpitude are framed against her by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to remand order passed by the revisional court. No order as to costs.