JUDGMENT 1. The matter came up for orders on the second stay application, however, looking to the nature of controversy, the writ petition itself was heard finally on merits. 2. By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has averred that he was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shahabad, Panchayat Samiti Shahabad, District Baran and an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 was registered against the petitioner by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. Manoj Mali and the Anti Corruption Bureau caught the petitioner red-handed with a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the trap proceedings conducted on 10/07/2020. The Assistant Secretary (Enquiry), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthanissued a notice to the petitioner on 18/09/2020 calling the petitioner to be present for personal hearing. It is submitted that before providing opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09/10/2020 under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. By another letter dated 09/10/2020, the petitioner was issued show cause notice as to why enquiry be not commenced against him under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Vide another order dated 14/10/2020, the charge of the post of Sarpanch was handed over to Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shahabad. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this writ petition assailing the orders dated 09/10/2020 and 14/10/2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 do not allow suspension of Chairperson of a Panchyati Raj Institution unless an enquiry has been initiated against him under sub-Section 1 of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 or against whom criminal proceedings with regard to the offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a competent court of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 cannot be said to have been initiated and therefore, the suspension is illegal and unjustified. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 27/11/2020 but the petitioner has been suspended before personal hearing was provided to him. It is stated that the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner are politically motivated and the complainant lodged a false FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 27/11/2020 but the petitioner has been suspended before personal hearing was provided to him. It is stated that the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner are politically motivated and the complainant lodged a false FIR. As per Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, before taking action under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State Government was required to conduct preliminary enquiry and after completion of preliminary enquiry, the report would be sent to the State Government and if it finds sufficient grounds available to initiate enquiry, the charge-sheet would be served upon defaulting person. In the criminal case, charges have not been framed as yet and therefore, it cannot be said that the criminal trial is pending against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- even was not recovered from the person of the petitioner but from another Satpal who, in order to save himself, stated that the amount was received by him for the purpose of the petitioner-Sarpanch. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in Vikas Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9089/2015), decided on 22/07/2015 and Hansraj Gujar v. state & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12698/2012), decided on 13/02/2013. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was found involved in the case of corruption where he has demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as a bribe for clearing the bills of a contractor and has been caught red-handed getting the money from his Secretary. The Secretary has clearly stated before the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities that he had collected the amount of Rs.10,000/- for giving to the petitioner-Sarpanch. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be fit to continue as a Sarpanch. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Principal Seat of this Court in Ram Swaroop v. State: 2000(2) WLC (Raj.) 348 to submit that opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the petitioner. He has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Archana Bohra v. The State of Raj. & Ors.: 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 245; Babli Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. He has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Archana Bohra v. The State of Raj. & Ors.: 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 245; Babli Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5512/2021), decided on 12/05/2021 as well as the judgment rendered by Divisions Bench of this Court in Babli Meena v. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.534/2021), decided on 19/07/2021 upholding order of learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that alongwith the charge-sheet, an order has been issued on 09/10/2020 itself framing charges under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and thus, it can not be said that the proceedings under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 have not been initiated before passing order of suspension. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone into the material available on record. 8. Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 reads as under:- "38. Removal and Suspension.- (1) The State Government may, by order in writing and after giving him and opportunity of being heard and making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove from office any member including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who- (a) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such; or (b) is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct : Provided that any enquiry under this sub- section may, even after the expiry of the term of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned be initiated or, if already initiated before such expiry, be continued thereafter and in any such case, the State Government shall, by order in writing, record its findings on the charges levelled. (2) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson removed under Sub-sec. (1) may at the discretion of the State Government also be removed from the membership, of any of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned. (3) The member or the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson removed under Sub-sec. (1) or against whom finding have been recorded under the proviso to that sub-sec, shall not be eligible for being chosen under this Act for a period of five years from the date of his removal or, as the case may be, the date on which such findings are recorded. (1) or against whom finding have been recorded under the proviso to that sub-sec, shall not be eligible for being chosen under this Act for a period of five years from the date of his removal or, as the case may be, the date on which such findings are recorded. (4) The State Government may suspended any member including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution against whom an enquiry has been initiated under Sub-sec. (1) or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to an offense involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a Court of law and such person shall stand debarred from taking part in any act or proceeding of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned while being under such suspension [Provided that the State Government may also suspend any Panch on the recommendation of the Ward Sabha or a Sarpanch on the recommendation of the Gram Sabha, but the State Government shall do so only when a resolution to that effect passed by a Ward Sabha, or a Gram Sabha, as the case may be, is referred by the State Government to the Collector for convening a special meeting of the Ward Sabha or the Gram Sabha, as the case may be, for finally ascertaining the wished of the members and the members present in the meeting so convened by the Collector and presided over by his nominee, reaffirm the resolution seeking suspension of the Panch or the Sarpanch, as the case may be, by a majority of two-third of the members present and voting :] Providing further that no resolution seeking suspension of the Panch or Sarpanch shall be moved or passed before the completion of a tenure of two years by a Panch or a Sarpanch, as the case may be. (5) The decision of the State Government on any matter arising under this section shall, subject to any order made under Sec. 97, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law." 9. Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 reads as under:- "22. (5) The decision of the State Government on any matter arising under this section shall, subject to any order made under Sec. 97, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law." 9. Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 reads as under:- "22. Procedure of enquiry - (1) Before taking any action under sub-section (1) of section 38, where on its own motion or upon any complaint, the State Government may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other office to get a preliminary enquiry done and to send his report to the State Government within one month. (2) If, upon consideration of the report received as aforesaid or otherwise, the State Government is of the opinion that action under Sub-Section (1) of Section 38 is necessary, the State Government shall frame definite charges and shall communicate them in writing to the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson or Member of the Panchayati Raj Institution together with such details as may be deemed necessary. He shall be required to submit a written statement within one month admiting or denying the allegations, giving his defence, if any and whether he desires to be heard in person. (3) State Government may after expiry of prescribed period and considering such written statement, appointment an enquiry Officer and also nominate any person to present the case before Enquire Officer on behalf of the State. (4) Enquiry Officer shall consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevent or material in regard to the charges. Opportunity of cross examination of witness shall be provided to the opposite side. (5) Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report on conclusion of enquiry, recording his findings on every charge as proved or not proved or partly proved along with the reasons therefore, and submit it to the State Government for final decision. (6) The provisions of the Rajasthan Disciplinary Proceedings (Summoning of witnesses and production of documents) Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act No. 28 of 1959) and the rules made thereunder shall also apply mutatis mutandis to enquiries being conducted against the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson or Member of Panchayati Raj Institution as the case may be, under these rules. (6) The provisions of the Rajasthan Disciplinary Proceedings (Summoning of witnesses and production of documents) Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act No. 28 of 1959) and the rules made thereunder shall also apply mutatis mutandis to enquiries being conducted against the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson or Member of Panchayati Raj Institution as the case may be, under these rules. (7) State Government shall consider the findings of Enquiring Officer and after giving him opportunity of hearing, may either exonerate, or remove such Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson or Member from the Office or pass appropriate orders. In case of removal, it shall also be published in official gazette. Provided that findings shall be recorded against them if term of election of such Panchayati Raj Institution has already expired." 10. Thus, while Rule 22(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 speaks of preliminary enquiry to be conducted, Rule 22(2) lays down the procedure for conducting enquiry once a decision is taken under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to initiate departmental enquiry for a mistake amounting to moral turpitude. Once an enquiry has been initiated, the authority has a power to suspend a public elected person holding the post of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of a Panchayti Raj Institution. 11. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Sarpanch, has been found actively involved in a trap case conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau for offence under Section 7 & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and therefore, there was no requirement of conducting a preliminary enquiry in terms of Rule 22(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The charge-sheet has already been filed although the charges have not been framed and therefore, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings/trial have started, still, the question remains whether the proceedings still under Section 38(1) have been initiated or not ? 12. A look at the order dated 09/10/2020 shows that while the covering letter sent to the petitioner mentions in the form of explanation as to why the proceedings should not be initiate against him under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, in the annexed charge-sheet, definite charges have been framed under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 13. 13. Thus, the order dated 09/10/2020 shows that the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Thus, the proceedings under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as noticed above, have been already followed. Since enquiry has been initiated under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of suspension has been passed in contravention of Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 14. The judgments, which have been cited from both the sides, took into consideration the facts of the case in hand thereto. 15. Suffice it to state that each case has to be examined on its own facts. 16. In view of the findings arrived at hereinabove in relation to the case of the petitioner herein, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner is legal and justified and the same does not warrant any interference. The consequential order giving charge to the post of Sarpanch to Up-Sarpanch, therefore, also does not warrant any interference. 17. Consequently, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.