JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. Instant writ petition calls in question the order dated 09.04.2025, whereby the State Government has suspended the petitioner from the post of Chairperson and Member, Municipal Board, Sagwara in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39 (6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009’). 2. Mr. Balia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that this Court had extensively heard this case on 25.05.2025 and Mr. Sandhu’s arguments have duly been noticed in the proceedings of such date. Instead of repeating those arguments, he began from the point where the matter was concluded on 25.05.2025. Hence, in order to collate the facts and contentions, the submissions made on the previous date and the hearing of 03.07.2025 are being noticed conjointly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the Court through various resolutions adopted by the Municipal Board on 27.07.2006 (Annexure-1); 21.08.2008 (Annexure-2); 08.10.2012 (Annexure-3); 05.09.2013 (Annexure-4) and 05.07.2021 (Annexure-5) and submitted that for the last 15 years, different Boards of the Municipality have decided to demolish the old building, which was in a dilapidated condition and to construct a new commercial complex in its place. 4. He stated that the Municipal Board had not only planned merging/including the land of the Patwar Bhawan in the project but also sought permission for conversion of land from the State Government. He submitted that the Board in its meeting dated 05.07.2021 decided to construct a commercial complex to make the Board financially independent. 5. Learned counsel submitted that considering the plan, which the Municipal Board had sent, the State Government approved the entire proposal, including conversion of the land. He submitted that since such an ambitious commercial complex was in the offing, the decision to demolish the construction of the meeting hall by the Board cannot be faulted with. 6. He added that the new building and the land of the meeting hall were to be used in the proposed commercial complex, which could not be constructed without removing the existing structures. 7. While maintaining that demolition of the Patwar Bhawan was inevitable, he argued that at the best it could be an erroneous decision in understanding the resolution dated 05.07.2021, but it did not involve any financial or substantial irregularity. 7. While maintaining that demolition of the Patwar Bhawan was inevitable, he argued that at the best it could be an erroneous decision in understanding the resolution dated 05.07.2021, but it did not involve any financial or substantial irregularity. He submitted that the entire idea was in the best interest, as part of the process of constructing a commercial complex, which would not only fetch rental and other income for the Board but would also provide better amenities to the citizenry. 8. In relation to other allegations against the petitioner relating to the issuance of the patta in favour of Mohd. Ismail Ghanchi – Vice-Chairman of the Board, learned counsel argued that said patta was issued under section 69A of the Act of 2009, which requires surrender of title and other rights and in many cases, pattas under section 69A of the Act of 2009 are being issued even on the basis of mere possession, after taking higher charges. 9. He further took the Court through the photocopy of the note- sheets, produced for perusal of the Court and pointed out that the Executive Officer and other officers have clearly reported that the empowered committee has considered the record and has found the application of the applicant to be in order and based on such report which was prepared by the In-charge of the Land Records (Bhumi Shakha Prabhari) and duly approved by the Executive Officer, the Chairman had approved grant of the subject patta. 10. Learned counsel argued that even in case of issuance of such patta, the State Government can at the best allege irregularities that too after due inquiry and since there is no allegation of corruption or manipulation, the petitioner’s suspension was neither warranted nor permissible, more particularly, when proceedings for cancelling the patta have never been initiated. 11. Relying upon interim order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Tak vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 14890/2024) decided on 06.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the Chairman alone cannot be held responsible for grant of patta, because he has to rely upon the report of other officers of the Municipal Board. 12. Learned counsel argued that in the case of Pradeep Hingar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 12. Learned counsel argued that in the case of Pradeep Hingar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740/2007) decided on 16.08.2007, this Court has dealt with almost all the judgments and has held that the case of an elected representative cannot be equated with that of a Government servant because an elected representative is vested with public faith and confidence, which cannot be denigrated. 13. Learned counsel argued that though the State does have power to place an elected representative under suspension but such power ought to be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases and not in a case like the one in hands. 14. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel cum Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State cited various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court so also the High Court:- (i) R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787 , decided on 19.11.1963 (ii) Smt. Somya Gurjar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6485/2021), decided on 28.06.2021 (iii) Smt. Sita Devi Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.239/2025), decided on 24.02.2025 15. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he cannot wash his hands off or shirk from his responsibility by simply saying that it is the duty of the subordinate officers of the Municipal Board to examine the correctness and legal position of the matter. He argued that being the head of the Municipal Board, the Chairman has the ultimate responsibility to examine not only the decision- making process but also the correctness of the decision or conclusion drawn by the officials before putting a seal of approval. 16. It was also argued that the petitioner has caused huge loss to the State Exchequer by demolishing the newly constructed meeting hall, which was constructed at the cost of Rs.33 Lakhs. 17. He highlighted that the petitioner had neither obtained prior approval from the State Government nor had he pointed out that such Bhawan would be demolished while applying for conversion of the land. 18. 17. He highlighted that the petitioner had neither obtained prior approval from the State Government nor had he pointed out that such Bhawan would be demolished while applying for conversion of the land. 18. He argued that so far as the resolutions relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, there is not even a whisper about the demolition of the Patwar Bhawan which was newly constructed (in 2017) and all the resolutions are only confined to construction of a new building, maybe, in the form of a complex. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General in this regard relied upon sections 48 and 39 of the Act of 2009 and contended that the Chairman is responsible to take care and oversee day-to-day affairs of the Municipal Board and powers under section 39(6) of the Act of 2009 are wide enough to place a Chairman under suspension, if he is found indulged in any kind of irregularities or malpractices. 20. He argued that the preliminary inquiry report furnished by the authorized officer of the Municipal Board is reflective of the petitioner’s involvement in grave irregularities and therefore, suspension was warranted, as the petitioner has to face the inquiry and its consequences. 21. He contended that the petitioner had wrongly granted patta to none other than the Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Board, without even looking at the legality and permissibility. 22. While informing that the Vice-Chairman too has been suspended, Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General argued that no interference is warranted in the present case. 23. During the hearing which took place on 20.05.2025, the Court had directed counsel for the petitioner to satisfy as to whether any specific resolution to demolish the administrative block constructed in 2017 was adopted while learned AAG was asked to apprise the Court as to whether the empowered committee had found the application of the Vice-Chairman for grant of Patta worth acceptance. 24. So far as resolution to demolish office complex is concerned, Mr. Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Municipal Board had been consistently feeling the need of constructing a new complex by demolishing the otherwise dilapidated building, as is evident from the resolution dated 27.07.2006 (Annex.1); 21.08.2008 (Annex.2); 08.10.2012 (Annex.3) and 05.09.2013 (Annex.4). 24. So far as resolution to demolish office complex is concerned, Mr. Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Municipal Board had been consistently feeling the need of constructing a new complex by demolishing the otherwise dilapidated building, as is evident from the resolution dated 27.07.2006 (Annex.1); 21.08.2008 (Annex.2); 08.10.2012 (Annex.3) and 05.09.2013 (Annex.4). He submitted that on 05.07.2021, a specific decision was taken to demolish the existing building and even administrative and financial sanction for a complex which could accommodate office, hall for community use and commercial complex was also granted. 25. The part of the resolution which Mr. Balia read, is reproduced hereinfra:- ^^ckn fopkj foe'kZ cgqer ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ;g Hkou orZeku esa ttZj voLFkk esa gksus ls ,oa 'kgj ds e/; fLFkr gksus ls ikfydk ds cM+s okguksa dk vkokxeu ls dkQh dfBukbZ;ka mRiUu gks jgh gSA 'kgj ds fodkl ,oa vke turk dh dfBukbZ;ksa dks ns[krs gq, orZeku Hkou dks fxjkdj u;k Hkou ftlesa jktdh; dk;kZy;] lkeqnkf;d mi;ksx] O;olkf;d] fefJr mi;ksx gsrq Hkou fuekZ.k djkus dh foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh ekLVj Iyku esa fdlh izdkj ls vko';drk vuqlkj Hkw&miksx ifjorZu dh dk;Zokgh djuh iM+s] ftldh Hkh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA** 26. In response to Mr. Balia’s explanation, Mr. Panwar, learned AAG submitted that true it is, that for the last two decades the Board had been feeling a need to construct a new building either by demolishing the existing building, the condition whereof had greatly deteriorated or by constructing the building at some other place, but the resolution dated 05.07.2021 of the Board did not mean that the office block which was constructed in the year 2017 after spending huge public funds of Rupees 33 Lakhs should be demolished. 27. He argued that the last para of the resolution No.1 read by Mr. Balia cannot be considered in isolation and out of context, if the resolution is read in its entirety, more particularly, in conjunction with what has been noticed in para immediately preceding the para which Mr. Balia read, it is apparent that the Board had decided to raise commercial complex on the building which was constructed in the year 1904 and to search another land for construction of ‘Nagar Palika Bhawan’. 28. Balia read, it is apparent that the Board had decided to raise commercial complex on the building which was constructed in the year 1904 and to search another land for construction of ‘Nagar Palika Bhawan’. 28. He argued that in the guise of the resolution aforesaid, the Chairman had proceeded to demolish not only the building constructed in the year 1904, which might have been in a dilapidated condition, but before doing so, the building constructed in the year 2017 was also demolished. He further argued that the building constructed in the year 2017 has been demolished in a hot-haste manner with an ulterior motive showing least concern for the huge public money (i.e. Rupees 33 Lakhs), which was spent in 2017 itself. 29. He added that not only this, the Chairman had shifted the office of the Municipal Board and its entire functioning to another rented premise, which premise was owned by none other than his own brother. 30. Mr. Panwar further argued that such a major decision to demolish the building and to construct a new commercial complex could not have been taken and executed without the prior approval of the State Government and the Chairman has therefore, clearly committed an illegality for which the proceedings are necessary and in order to ensure fair inquiry, suspension of the petitioner is justified. 31. So far as the question posed to the State Government about the application of the applicant (Vice-Chairman) is concerned, Mr. Panwar produced the entire record relating to the patta in question for perusal of the Court and argued that maybe the officers right from the junior engineer to the executive officer had given favourable comments, but it was ultimately the responsibility of the Chairman to examine the title and veracity of the assertions made by the applicant. 32. He vehemently argued that a patta has been issued for land admeasuing 21182 Square Feet, whereas the title documents which the applicant had furnished were only for 7052 Square Feet area. He submitted that the subordinate staff and engineer etc. had made totally erroneous calculations and even the Revenue Officer had determined wrong amount payable for issuance of patta inasmuch as he was supposed to charge 10% of the DLC rate whereas meagre sum of Rupees 1,550/- was charged. 33. He submitted that the subordinate staff and engineer etc. had made totally erroneous calculations and even the Revenue Officer had determined wrong amount payable for issuance of patta inasmuch as he was supposed to charge 10% of the DLC rate whereas meagre sum of Rupees 1,550/- was charged. 33. He submitted that the State Government has issued guidelines from time to time in this regard, which guidelines have been given a complete go-by by the Chairman who has the final word and under whose signatures, the patta was issued. 34. In this regard, Mr. Panwar took the Court through various provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Surrender of Non - Agricultural Land and Grant of Free-hold Lease), Rules 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2015’) and the relevant guidelines. 35. Adverting to the other issue raised by the State about grant of patta to the Vice-Chairman – Mr. Mohd. Illiyas, Mr. Balia vehemently argued that a Chairman is neither supposed to go into intricacy of each of the files in the cases related to patta nor does he possess requisite proficiency for the same. So far as site inspection and examination of title and calculation of amount is concerned, the same is to be done by the engineer, revenue officer and different officials entrusted with such duties, who are qualified for such purposes. 36. He submitted that legality etc. is also examined by the person designated and then the same has to be firstly examined by the empowered committee and approved by the executive officer of the Board, who is from Municipal Services and well versed with law. A Chairman is not supposed to calculate or check the amount required to be paid. 37. Having said so, learned senior counsel raised a concern that learned AAG who is assisted by a battery of lawyers and officers- in-charge have so vociferously contended that the documents of title, which the petitioner had furnished was only for 7052 Square Feet, but he also has not seen the record properly inasmuch as he has completely ignored another document or title which too is in the name of his mother which is for 14130 (157X90) Square Feet. He showed both these documents and submitted that if the land parcels covered by both the documents are added, the same turns out to be 21182 square feet – the exact measurement for which the patta has been granted. 38. While inviting Court’s attention towards the application for grant of patta, learned senior counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the application filed by the Vice-Chairman for granting patta was for 26297 square feet (wrongly shown as 26297 sq. meters), whereas patta was ultimately granted for 21182 square feet only, in terms of the actual title and not according to the possession, which the applicant had claimed. 39. He submitted that the argument of Mr. Panwar that the Board has taken wrong amount of fee for grant of patta is also absolutely incorrect inasmuch as 10% of the DLC rates is to be charged when the patta or free-hold lease is sought on the basis of possession whereas in a case where the land is covered by title, 10% of the DLC rate is not required to be charged. 40. With expression of surprise and concern in his voice, Mr. Balia argued that if the learned AAG who is known for his hard work and legal acumen, alongwith the assistance of two able assistants and officer-in-charge, could not properly and correctly examine the record and has wrongly determined the amount payable, how can the State expect an elected representative, who may, in some case be illiterate or not educated enough to understand the complexities of title and calculations of the amount payable?. He added that for all those components, the Chairman has to rely upon the subordinate officers, who are appointed for such purpose. He argued that targeting the Chairman alone and placing him under suspension, while turning a blind eye towards the fault of other responsible officials is nothing short of political vendetta. 41. Mr. Panwar, learned AAG submitted that the State has referred the matter for judicial inquiry and would ensure that the inquiry is concluded expeditiously and since the inquiry is held by a judicial officer and not by the State Officials, the Court can presume that the same shall be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. He assured that the State Government would ensure that the inquiry is concluded within a period of two months. 42. Having said so, Mr. He assured that the State Government would ensure that the inquiry is concluded within a period of two months. 42. Having said so, Mr. Panwar submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 09.04.2025 and a period of about three months has already passed and quashing the suspension order at this juncture while allowing the petitioner to work as a Chairman of the Board will not only send wrong signal but may also give an opportunity to the Chairman to influence the witnesses, if not the inquiry. 43. On Court’s query as to whether any action has been taken against the officers who have allegedly given wrong report, including the executive officer? Mr. Panwar informed that charge- sheet(s) have been issued to all those officers and since they are not posted in the Municipal Board, Sagwara, the State has not placed them under suspension. 44. Mr. Balia, as an addendum submitted that in many cases, the State has revoked suspension of the Chairman after obtaining undertakings that he/they would not influence the inquiry while citing various such orders and submitted that if the State revokes suspension in more grave cases, why can’t it revoke petitioner’s suspension? He prayed that the State be directed to give similar treatment to the petitioner. 45. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 46. So far as the allegation of demolishing of the meeting hall constructed in the year 2017 is concerned, this Court feels that the fact that the building was constructed in the Year 1904 and is/was in a dilapidated condition is an undisputed fact. According to this Court, since for the last two decades, different Boards have been feeling the need of razing the existing building, which was in a dilapidated condition and to construct a new building and have decided to construct a commercial complex so as to generate rental income and render the Board self sufficient, for which no accusation can be leveled against the Chairman. A resolution adopted by the Board is a decision of the entire Board and not of the Chairman alone. 47. This Court finds some substance in the argument of Mr. Panwar and if the minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2021 are read carefully, it appears that the Resolution No.1 was to demolish the Municipal Board building, which was constructed in the Year 1904. 47. This Court finds some substance in the argument of Mr. Panwar and if the minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2021 are read carefully, it appears that the Resolution No.1 was to demolish the Municipal Board building, which was constructed in the Year 1904. But, still there is a possibility of two views or opinion, and thus the Chairman could have bonafidely understood that all the existing buildings are to be demolished. Such perception or conclusion can at the best be an erroneous or wrong decision, but unless any corrupt practise is alleged or any material or evidence suggesting bungling of public fund is available, the proceedings for removal of the Chairman appears to be uncalled for. 48. Be that as it may. The State has issued charge-sheet to the petitioner under Section 39 of the Act of 2009 and whether the decision of the Chairman was actuated with malafide or with an oblique motive to devour public fund can be ascertained after the inquiry, but pending such decision, placing the Chairman under suspension cannot be countenanced. 49. Ultimately, it is the duty of the State and responsibility of the Court to ensure the Constitutional mandate of autonomy and democratic functioning of the local bodies. 50. Adverting to much contested issue of patta issued to the Vice-Chairman - having gone through the record of the file relating to the contentious patta or free-hold lease, this Court is of the view that there were two documents of title furnished by the applicant – one being the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1999 and another being hand written sale deed dated 26.03.1974 both in favour of the mother of the Vice-Chairman and if the land parcels covered by both the sale deeds are taken together, it is apparent that the applicant’s mother was having title over 21182 Square Feet land. 51. That apart, before grant of patta, a public notice was issued by the Municipal Board and admittedly nobody had objected to grant of patta to Mr. Mohd. Ismail – the Vice-Chairman. The allegation in the charge-sheet is vague and the same appears to be regarding non-observance of the guidelines issued by the State Government alleging that consent or NOC from other legal heirs of the applicant’s mother were not placed on record. Mohd. Ismail – the Vice-Chairman. The allegation in the charge-sheet is vague and the same appears to be regarding non-observance of the guidelines issued by the State Government alleging that consent or NOC from other legal heirs of the applicant’s mother were not placed on record. Surprisingly, it is not on record as to whether there was any other legal heir of said Gafooran Bai – mother of the Vice-Chairman apart from the applicant. 52. Furthermore, no complaint or grievance was raised by the legal heirs (if any); even no one had filed objection qua issuance of the patta pursuant to the public notice published in the daily newspaper. And, if at all there is any possibility of illegality or influencing the system, the Vice-Chairman in whose favour the patta was issued, himself can atleast exert this much of influence over the subordinate officers to report in his favour and if that be the case, making the petitioner alone a scapegoat while taking a lenient view qua the Vice-Chairman and erring officials raises serious doubts about the State Government’s bonafide. 53. This Court is of the firm view that the case of an elected representative such as Chairman and Vice-Chairman cannot be equated with that of a Government servant in matters relating to suspension. Suspension of a Government servant may not be taken as a punishment because they are entitled to subsistence allowance as per the law and in case charge-sheet is not served, they can claim their reinstatement but such is not a position in the case of elected representatives. 54. Suspension of an elected representative not only takes away his right of discharging official duties but also creates a dent in his reputation, which adversely affect his public life. The State should therefore, be more cautious and loathe while placing an elected representative under suspension. 55. 54. Suspension of an elected representative not only takes away his right of discharging official duties but also creates a dent in his reputation, which adversely affect his public life. The State should therefore, be more cautious and loathe while placing an elected representative under suspension. 55. This Court feels that demolition of the disputed building, can at the best be alleged to be an erroneous decision, perhaps in an anxiety of accomplishing an ambitious project for construction of a commercial complex and maybe it has caused some loss to the Exchequer, but in the fact-situation of present case where the Board has been trying to construct a new building for the Municipal Board, it cannot be taken to be a grave irregularity falling within the meaning of misconduct or in the ambit of any of the clauses of Section 39 (1)(d) of the Act of 2009. 56. The aforesaid view of this Court finds full support from the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Gautam Tak (supra) and Bheru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4390/2024 decided on 16.04.2024). 57. What bothers this Court the most is, that after the preliminary inquiry being conducted, the State had elicited petitioner’s response as required under sub-section (3) of Section 39 of the Act of 2009. The petitioner had filed a detailed explanation/reply, but a perusal of notice/charge-sheet dated 05.09.2024 reveals that it contains no consideration of petitioner’s reply. The State Government has mechanically issued a charge- sheet while relying upon the preliminary inquiry report and has rendered the provision of sub-section (3) to be nugatory. Such approach of the State reeks of vendetta and gives an impression of political victimisation. 58. It is to be noted that the petitioner has suffered suspension for more than three months and the relevant record has been seized by the State Government. Additionally, all the persons who were posted at the relevant time have been transferred as stated by Mr. Panwar. Charge-sheet has been served and all the relevant documents relied upon by the State Government have been collected. Such being the position, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and temper with the record to affect the judicial inquiry, which is going to be conducted by a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre. 59. Panwar. Charge-sheet has been served and all the relevant documents relied upon by the State Government have been collected. Such being the position, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and temper with the record to affect the judicial inquiry, which is going to be conducted by a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre. 59. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to furnish an undertaking that he would not try to influence the witnesses or the inquiry in any manner (or any other undertaking which the State proposes him to furnish) within a period of 7 days alongwith a certified copy of the order instant. On undertaking being furnished, the State shall objectively and dispassionately consider petitioner’s request for revocation of suspension, as has been done in similar and even in cases involving graver irregularities and misconduct. 60. The State is further directed to ensure that the judicial inquiry initiated against the petitioner is concluded expeditiously. 61. While parting with the judgment, as an abundant caution, this Court would like to state that whatever has been observed by this Court is a prima-facie opinion based on the arguments advanced by the rival parties, the same shall not have any bearing or binding effect on the decision of the authority conducting judicial inquiry. He shall take independent decision after going through the reply of the petitioner and considering oral and ocular evidence. 62. In case the inquiry officer holds against the petitioner and the State Government takes any decision prejudicial to the petitioner’s rights, he shall be free to take his legal remedies in accordance with law. 63. The writ petition as well as the stay application stands disposed of accordingly.