ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dt.17.09.2018 passed by the respondents wherein they have placed the petitioner under suspension by invoking power under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kala Deh, Panchayat Samiti Bheem, District Rajsamand. The petitioner has pleaded that he was working very honestly with the job assigned to a Sarpanch. A false complaint under Section 7, 13 (1) (D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the petitioner by one namely Mahendra Singh Rawat. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that false allegation was levelled against him that he had demanded a bribe for registering the Patta of said Mahendra Singh Rawat. The petitioner has pleaded that after lodging of the FIR, the matter is still pending adjudication before the Competent Criminal Court and no charge-sheet has been filed before filing of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that the moment he came to know that Mahendra Singh Rawat and his father have got registered Pattas by putting false signature and seal of the petitioner, the petitioner also lodged an FIR on 29.08.2018 and informed that he had never signed or put his seal over the said Pattas. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that without affording opportunity of hearing and notice, impugned order dt.17.09.2018 placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed. 5. Mr. Narendra Thanvi, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that power given under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has wrongly and illegally been exercised in the present case. Learned counsel has submitted that an enquiry against the petitioner was initiated by the respondents by issuing order dt.17.09.2018 itself wherein the petitioner was informed along with charge-sheet that the Department had decided to conduct an enquiry under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of holding enquiry and explanation was sought by 03.10.2018 and the said letter of asking explanation and holding enquiry under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22, was delivered to the petitioner on 27.10.2018 and the same fact is evident from the original envelop filed by the petitioner along with charge-sheet. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of holding enquiry and explanation was sought by 03.10.2018 and the said letter of asking explanation and holding enquiry under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22, was delivered to the petitioner on 27.10.2018 and the same fact is evident from the original envelop filed by the petitioner along with charge-sheet. Learned counsel has submitted that the said letter was posted on 24.10.2018 from counter No. 2 of the Rajasthan Secretariat and the same was received by the petitioner on 27.10.2018. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that if the enquiry which is conducted against the petitioner under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22 is to be taken as the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension, the same cannot be an enquiry said to be initiated against the petitioner under sub-section (4) of Section 38. 8. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have committed grave illegality in passing the suspension order, as neither the petitioner is facing criminal trial in any FIR which is registered against the petitioner nor the enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 and learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been made an escape goat and because of political rivalries, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that entire FIR is a vindictive act by the rivals of the petitioner as the document which is said to be forged by the petitioner, does not bear his signature as well as seal. 10. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 empowers State Government to place an elected person of Panchayati Raj Institution under suspension against whom an enquiry is initiated under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22 or against whom any criminal proceeding in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a court of law. 12. This Court finds that impugned order of placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed by the respondents by invoking power provided under Section 38(4) of the Act, 1994. This Court finds that the petitioner has been issued charge-sheet and an enquiry has been initiated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996. 13. 12. This Court finds that impugned order of placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed by the respondents by invoking power provided under Section 38(4) of the Act, 1994. This Court finds that the petitioner has been issued charge-sheet and an enquiry has been initiated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996. 13. The perusal of the procedure of holding enquiry under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 clearly provides that before taking any action under sub-section (1) of Section 38 the State Government on its own motion or upon any complaint may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other official to get preliminary enquiry done and to send his report to the State Government within one month. 14. This Court finds that sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 requires the State Government shall frame a definite charges and shall communicate them in writing to the Chairperson with such details as may be deemed necessary. The persons concerned is required to submit written statement within one month admitting or denying the allegations, giving his/her defence, if any, and whether he desires to be heard in person. 15. This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once an explanation has been called from the petitioner by issuing him charge-sheet under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22, it cannot be said that enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated. 16. This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry, against the person is said to be initiated until an explanation or reply is filed by the incumbent and then the Government has to proceed later on. This Court finds that before giving notice of any enquiry by framing definite charges, the State Government already exercised power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 and after preliminary enquiry done, the necessary step is being taken. 17. This Court finds that before giving notice of any enquiry by framing definite charges, the State Government already exercised power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 and after preliminary enquiry done, the necessary step is being taken. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension order has been passed on 17.09.2018 and on the same day the petitioner is asked to give explanation by issuing charge-sheet, which is received by the petitioner on 27.10.2018, this Court finds that once the enquiry under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 is initiated against a person, the power of placing under suspension is vested with the State Government, as per subsection (4) of Section 38 of the Act, 1994. 18. This Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in receipt of show cause-notice of enquiry, will vitiate the suspension order. 19. The State Government while framing the definite charges under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 is mandatorily required to communicate the same to the person concerned and further written statement is sought within one month. The outer limit of one month can always be used or exercised by the person concerned, if he receives the notice of enquiry belatedly and the defence which is available to question such enquiry cannot be a basis to question the order of suspension which is exercised, as per sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Act, 1994. 20. This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is victim of circumstances and in order to implicate him, conspiracy has been hatched by his political rivals. 21. This Court does not deem it proper to express its opinion and as such it is the petitioner’s discretion to defend himself. This Court does not find any substance in the present matter and the same is dismissed.