JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order, or direction, (i) The order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure-1) be quashed and set aside. (ii) The Petitioner be reinstated on the post of Chairman of the Municipality Raisinghnagar, District – Ganganagar. (iii) Any other order favourable to the Petitioners may also be passed. (iv) Cost of writ petition may be awarded.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Municipality, Raisinghnagar, District Ganganagar. However, the Vice Chairman, of the said Municipality, received a complaint, against the petitioner, alleging certain instances of misconduct and bias on the part of the petitioner (Chairman); the said complaint was forwarded to the Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the necessary action. 2.1. Upon receipt of such complaint by the Department, one Mr. Narendra Pal Singh, the then Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner was appointed as enquiry officer. An enquiry report dated 14.12.2022 was submitted by the enquiry officer, before the Director & Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein it was mentioned by the enquiry officer that looking into the issues raised in the complaint and dealt with in the enquiry report, the case is required to be looked into by a high level departmental enquiry committee. 2.1.1. The following issues were dealt with in the aforementioned enquiry report: (i) Financial irregularities in payments towards sterilization of dogs, (ii) Allotment of a strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi), which form part of the road; and (iii) Huge loss of revenue to the State exchequer, as a consequence of irregular issuance of tenders, in relation to advertisement hoardings. 2.2. As per the averments made in the petition, the enquiry report was based on the complaint of the then Minister, Disaster Management & Relief, Administrative Reforms and Coordination Statistics Department, Government of Rajasthan, and in consequence of such complaint, the enquiry officer was appointed and directed to conduct inspection in question at the Municipality, Raisinghnagar. 2.3 Subsequently, a letter dated 23.02.2023 was addressed by the petitioner to the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Government, with a request to provide to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report dated 14.12.2022. 2.3 Subsequently, a letter dated 23.02.2023 was addressed by the petitioner to the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Government, with a request to provide to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report dated 14.12.2022. However, instead thereof, on 27.04.2023, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit his response to the charges levelled therein, within three days thereafter. 2.3.1. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforementioned charge-sheet on 29.04.2023. However, the respondents, without taking into due consideration the contents of the said reply, exercised their power under Section 39(6) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2009’), on the basis of the enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, suspending the petitioner from post of Chairman, Municipality, Rajsinghnagar, District Ganganagar, for the purpose of forwarding the matter for judicial enquiry. 2.4. Thus being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned suspension order is violative of Section 39(1) of the Act of 2009, as proviso to Section 39(1) specifically provides that an order of removal shall be passed by the State Government after such inquiry as it considers necessary to make either 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. 3.1. It was further submitted that the allegations in relation to Khancha Bhoomi were baseless, as the said facility had been granted to owners of Khancha Bhoomi on previous occasions as well, when the present petitioner was not the Chairman of the said Municipality. Thus, as per learned counsel, the allotment of Khancha Bhoomi in question to the land owners concerned was a regular process that has been conducted, by the predecessors (Chairmen) of the petitioner, on the post of Chairman of the Municipality. 3.2. In furtherance, it was submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, vide its one of the orders i.e. 14.01.2004 passed in Revision No. 4/2003, allotted Khancha Bhoomi to the land owners concerned. 3.3. It was also submitted that the decision of allotment of strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi) was taken by the Empowered Committee of the Municipal Board, while following the due procedure, as laid down therefor. 3.4. 3.3. It was also submitted that the decision of allotment of strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi) was taken by the Empowered Committee of the Municipal Board, while following the due procedure, as laid down therefor. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the population of the dogs for conducting sterilization was based on the report of the Swachata Nirikshak of the Municipality and was further based on the recommendations of the Government Veterinary Doctor. The counting of the dogs was based on the government records, and the necessary payment in question was made on the basis of the report submitted by the Sanitary Inspector. 3.5. With regard to allegations of loss of revenue to the State Exchequer, on count of irregular issuance of tenders for advertisement hoardings, it was submitted by the learned counsel, that the tender process had failed 3-4 times and it was discovered that the lack of participation was due to the term of the tender being only for one year, and in that one year also, the successful participant(s) were required to install their own structure, which takes approximately two months, thereby, rendering the participant unable to earn profit. 3.5.1. Thus to counter this problem, a decision was taken to issue tender for a period of 5 years, and after the lapse of such period, the structure so installed would become property of the Municipality. Therefore, it was submitted that the decision was taken, while duly keeping the interest of the Municipality in mind. 3.6. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed on the following orders: (a) Order dated 05.05.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bablu Maida v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (D.B. Spl. Appl. (Writ) No. 297/2023); (b) Order dated 16.08.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Vivek Meena v. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 532/2017); (c) Order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Shobhalal Regar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5878/2023); and (d) Order dated 13.09.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Anita Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15760/2017). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay; and Mr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5878/2023); and (d) Order dated 13.09.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Anita Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15760/2017). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay; and Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was one of the Member of the aforementioned Empowered Committee, that had taken the decision to allot the strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi) and granted approval on the file of grant of strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi) to the petitioner himself. 4.1. Moreover, it was submitted that the portion(s) of the strip of land(s) (Khancha Bhoomi) allotted to other individuals were also situated on the roads, which become evident from a bare perusal of the plan/map of the concerned plots as well as the approved layout plan. 4.2. It was further submitted that as per the Census so conducted, the population of the dogs in Raisinghnagar in the year 2012 was 55, which was increased to 183 in the year 2019. As per the above statistics, on an average, the figure could have raised between 250-300 in the year 2021. However, the payment so made in the present case, for the purpose of sterilisation, was for 1000 dogs. In furtherance, it was submitted that the photograph of one dog was used at multiple places to make payments for the purpose of sterilisation. Thus, the payments made by the petitioner from the State Exchequer raised a valid doubt in the mind of the authorities concerned, and hence, the impugned suspension order is justified in law. 4.3. It was also submitted that the issuance of tender in relation to advertisement hoardings was given for a period of 5 years (2022-2027) for an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- whereas for a period of only one year (2020-2021) the amount given was of Rs.2,03,500/-. Thus, it was evident that the petitioner had caused huge monetary loss to the State Exchequer. 4.4. 1,05,000/- whereas for a period of only one year (2020-2021) the amount given was of Rs.2,03,500/-. Thus, it was evident that the petitioner had caused huge monetary loss to the State Exchequer. 4.4. It was further submitted that once the petitioner’s conduct was brought to the notice of the Local Self Government, Department, Bikaner the fact finding enquiry was ordered to be conducted by its Deputy Director (Regional) and an enquiry report was prepared and submitted by the said Officer, to the Department. In furtherance, the Department issued a show cause notice along with charge-sheet to the petitioner on 27.04.2023 and received response of the petitioner, which was given due consideration; however, due to the proved irregularities committed by the decision, the impugned suspension order was passed. Thus, as per the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned suspension order against him. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was an elected Chairman of the Municipality, Raisinghnagar, District Ganganagar and an enquiry report was submitted against him by the aforesaid enquiry officer on 14.12.2022, with regard to the aforementioned three issues, while recommending that the matter requires to be looked into by a high level departmental enquiry committee. 7. At the outset, it is made clear that this Court is only dealing with the complaint, subject matter of the enquiry report and the suspension order with relation to the allotment of strip of land (Khancha Bhoomi) by the petitioner in his own name. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner was a Member of the Empowered Committee constituted in pursuance of “Prashashan Shahron Ke Sang Abhiyaan, 2021”, and thus, was involved in the process of allotment of the strip of lands (Khancha Bhoomi), which form part of the road, to certain individuals. 8.1. It is evident that the petitioner has not only allotted the strip of lands (Khancha Bhoomi) to other individuals but to himself as well. As such it is clear that the petitioner was taking benefit of his position, which is not permissible under the law. 8.1. It is evident that the petitioner has not only allotted the strip of lands (Khancha Bhoomi) to other individuals but to himself as well. As such it is clear that the petitioner was taking benefit of his position, which is not permissible under the law. Thus, the petitioner clearly misused his position and took advantage of the same, and such an act on the part of the petitioner cannot be taken in a lenient manner. 9. The orders referred on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 10. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.