Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:- INDEX (1) Submissions by counsel for petitioner:-…….…………….….......2 (2) Judgments referred by counsel for petitioner:-…………….…..5 (3) Submissions by counsel for respondents:-.……..…….…......…5 (4) Judgments referred by counsel for respondents:-……………..8 (5) Rejoinder by counsel for petitioner:-……………………………....8 (6) Discussions & Analysis:-.…………….………………………………….9 (7) Conclusion & Direction:-……………………………………………….28 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension from the post of Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage. Submissions by counsel for petitioner:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner’s husband with the Anti- Corruption Bureau, alleging that he was involved in taking bribe in consideration of signing a patta. 3. Counsel submits that certain news articles were published in the newspaper and based on the basis same, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.08.2023, which was assailed before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12675/2023. Counsel submits that while the suspension order was stayed by this Court, the respondent-State subsequently revoked the said order vide order dated 01.09.2023, rendering the writ petition infructuous. 4. Counsel submits that again the petitioner was again placed under suspension by the respondents vide order dated 22.09.2023 and the said order was again assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15551/2023. This Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 quashed and set-aside the suspension order and directed the respondents to appoint a new Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner with regard to the allegations levelled against her. Counsel further submits that while deciding the aforesaid matter, this Court issued a specific direction to the respondents to do the needful exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. 5. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner re-joined as Mayor and she continued to hold the said office until 24.09.2024, i.e., for a period of more than 9 months and 27 days. 5. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner re-joined as Mayor and she continued to hold the said office until 24.09.2024, i.e., for a period of more than 9 months and 27 days. Counsel submits that while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15551/2023, this Court took note of the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner in the earlier matter was treated as reply by the concerned Enquiry Officer and this Court was of the considered view that the said application, submitted by the petitioner, ought not to have been treated as her reply. Counsel submits that considering these material aspects of the matter, this Court quashed the suspension order vide order dated 01.12.2023. 6. Counsel submits that without providing any information or supplying a copy of the order, appointing the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, a notice under Section 39 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, “the Act of 2009”) was issued to the petitioner by one Vinod Purohit, Deputy Direction (Regional), Department of Local Bodies, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit her documents within a period of three days. Counsel submits that the said notice was received by the petitioner on 12.09.2024 and immediately thereafter, holidays ensued from 13.09.2024 to 16.09.2024. Hence, on the next date working day, i.e., 17.09.2024, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the Deputy Direction (Regional), Department of Local Bodies asking for a copy of the order appointing him an Enquiry Officer. Counsel submits that an objection was also raised regarding the notice dated 11.09.2024, as the same was not issued upon the petitioner in digital format by the Government. Counsel further submits that no document was supplied to the petitioner and subsequently, a second notice was issued to her on 18.09.2024 wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and she was called upon to submit her reply within a period of three days. Counsel submits that this time again holidays came in between and the petitioner submitted a similar application on 21.09.2024 to the Director, Local Bodies requesting to supply her a copy of the order by which the Enquiry Officer had been appointed, enabling her to submit an appropriate reply. However, the aforesaid application, submitted by the petitioner, was treated as her reply and thereafter, the order impugned dated 23.09.2024 was passed, placing the petitioner under suspension. However, the aforesaid application, submitted by the petitioner, was treated as her reply and thereafter, the order impugned dated 23.09.2024 was passed, placing the petitioner under suspension. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is an elected representative and, therefore, she cannot be suspended in the same manner, as a government employee serving in the Government Department. Counsel submits that principles of natures justice have been grossly violated in the instant matter, inasmuch as, the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to file reply and to be heard and straightaway the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Lastly, counsel argued that the order passed by this Court was clear, specific and unequivocal directing the State Officials to appoint a new Enquiry Officer and to conclude the enquiry within a period of one month, but in spite of the lapse of more than nine months, no such exercise was done by the respondents and in the meantime, the petitioner continued to discharge on the post of Mayor. Therefore, there was no justification available with the respondents to suspend the petitioner in such a hurried and arbitrary manner. On this count also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Judgments referred by counsel for petitioner:- 8. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the following orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:- 1. Nand Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Raj 303 , decided on 07.08.1995. 2. Vimla Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Raj 458, decided on 17.08.2007. Submissions by counsel for respondents :- 9. Per contra, learned Advocate General opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner, her husband and other co-accused persons, the matter was re-investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, wherein petitioner’s involvement was found and accordingly, sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 06.09.2024 and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted again her along-with other accused persons before the competent Court of law under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 (for short, “the P.C. Act”). Learned Advocate General further submits that the respondents have not proceeded against the petitioner in a hasty or arbitrary manner. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who examined the matter and thereafter, issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.09.2024, calling her to submit reply. Learned Advocate General submits that instead of submitting a substantive reply to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted an application raising certain technical objections in order to delay the proceedings, like the notice was not digitally signed, it was lacking the official seal impression, etc. He further submits that as per the circulars issued by the Department of Public Administration, in the matters relating to enquiry, court litigation and confidential proceedings, the process is required to be initiated through both manual as well as digital modes. Learned Advocate General submits that merely because a document was not digitally signed does not render the proceedings invalid and vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. 10. Learned Advocate General submits that serious charges of corruption are found against the petitioner, during the course of investigation. The charges reveal that that the petitioner in collusion with her husband demanded bribe for issuing pattas in favour of the needy persons. It is submitted that the petitioner, being public representative, is not expected to ask money from the public for their needful work and she was supposed to act in the public interest and not have demanded money for performing official duties. Learned Advocate General further submits that there was no delay in appointing the new Enquiry Officer. The new Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24.06.2024, after collection of the relevant matter and thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to submit here reply not only once but twice. However, in stead of submitting a substantive reply, the petitioner submitted two different applications raising technical objections to delay the proceedings. Counsel submits that as per Section 39 (3) of the Act of 2009, an explanation is required to be sought from the petitioner prior to initiating any proceedings and that procedural requirement was duly complied with by the respondents and if the petitioner fails to submit any reply, the State was under an obligation to proceed further in the matter. Counsel submits that as per Section 39 (3) of the Act of 2009, an explanation is required to be sought from the petitioner prior to initiating any proceedings and that procedural requirement was duly complied with by the respondents and if the petitioner fails to submit any reply, the State was under an obligation to proceed further in the matter. He further submits that a charge-sheet in the form of statement has been supplied to the petitioner and presently, a judicial enquiry is being conducted against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has started her participation. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 11. Lastly, he argued that once a judicial enquiry has been initiated, the Preliminary Enquiry has no bearing. He further submits that the petitioner has not challenged either the charge- sheet or the process of initiation of judicial enquiry against her and she has simply challenged the validity of the order whereby she was placed under suspension. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Judgments referred by counsel for respondents :- 12. Learned Advocated General has placed reliance upon the following orders, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court:- 1. Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 299, decided on 20.11.1996. 2. Devender Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14381/2023, decided on 21.11.2023. 3. Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2022 (1) RLW 494 (Raj.), decided on 01.02.2022. 4. Bharat Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13062/2022 decided on 16.02.2023. Rejoinder by counsel for petitioner:- 13. In rejoinder, Mr.Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General in the case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as that mater pertains to a government employee and not an elected Public Representative. Senior Counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.02.2024 issued by the Department of Public Administration, it is incumbent upon the Government to issue all the orders digitally. Senior Counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.02.2024 issued by the Department of Public Administration, it is incumbent upon the Government to issue all the orders digitally. He submits that the petitioner was having doubts regarding authenticity of the first notice dated 11.09.2024, issued by one Vinod Purohit, as the same was not digitally signed, and that is why, an application was submitted by her asking the authorities for providing the same, but neither the digitally signed document was supplied to the petitioner nor she was granted adequate time or opportunity to submit her reply to the notice and the impugned order has been passed before the expiry of the cooling period mentioned in the notice itself, which has grossly violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. Discussions & Analysis:- 15. Hence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. Discussions & Analysis:- 15. The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner under Section 39 (6) of the Act of 2009, but before entering into the merits of the matter, it would be gainful to quote the extract of Section 39 of the Act, which reads as under:- “ Section 39 Removal of member - (1) The State Government may, subject to the provisions of sub Sections (3) and (4), remove a member of a Municipality on any of the following grounds, namely: - (a) that he has absented himself for more than three consecutive general meetings, without leave of the Municipality: Provided that the period during which such member was in jail as an under trial prisoner or as a detenue or as a political prisoner shall not be taken into account, (b) that he has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 37, (c) that after his election he has incurred any of the disqualification mentioned in Section 14 or Section 24 or has ceased to fulfill the requirements of Section 21, (d) that he has (i) deliberately neglected or avoided performance of his duties as a member, or (ii) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or (iii) been guilty of any disgraceful conduct, or (iv) become incapable of performing his duties as a member, or (v) been disqualified for being chosen as member under the provisions of this Act, or (vi) otherwise abused in any manner his position as such member: Provided 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. (2) The power conferred by sub-Section (1) may be exercised by the State Government of its own motion or upon the receipt of a report from the Municipality in that behalf or upon the facts otherwise coming to the knowledge of the State Government: Provided that, until a member is removed from office by an order of the State Government under this Section, he shall not vacate his office and shall, subject to the provisions contained in sub-Section (6), continue to act as, and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of, a member and shall as such be entitled to all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities, of a member under this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1) where it is proposed to remove a member on any of the grounds specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-Section (1), as a result of the inquiry referred to in the proviso to that sub-Section and after hearing the explanation of the member concerned, the State Government shall draw up a statement setting out distinctly the charge against the member and shall send the same for enquiry and findings by Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge to be appointed by the State Government for the purpose. (4) The Judicial Officer so appointed shall proceed to inquire into the charge, hear the member concerned, if he makes appearance, record his findings on each matter embodied in the statement as well as on every other matter he considers relevant to the charge and send the record along with such findings to the State Government, which shall thereupon either order for re-inquiry, for reasons to be recorded in writing, or pass final order. (5) While hearing an inquiry under sub-Section (4), the Judicial Officer shall observe such rules of procedure as may be prescribed by the State Government and shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any such document or any other material as may be predicable in evidence; (c) requisitioning any public record; and (d) any other matter which may be prescribed. (6) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, the State Government may place under suspension a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under this Section until the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order and the member so suspended shall not be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the Municipality or otherwise perform the duties of a member thereof. (7) Every final order of the State Government passed under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall be final and no such order shall be liable to be called in question in any Court.” 16. Perusal of Section 39 of the Act of 2009 reveals that a member of a Municipality can be removed from his office if he has deliberately neglected or avoided performance of his duties as a member, or he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or he has been guilty of any disgraceful conduct. As per Section 39 (3) of the Act, after taking the explanation of such member, the State Government shall draw up a statement setting out distinctly the charge against him and shall send the matter for enquiry by Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge. As per Section 39 (6), the State Government may place such member under suspension against whom proceedings have been commenced under this Section until the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order and such suspended member shall not be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the Municipality or otherwise perform the duties of a member thereof. 17. Now, this Court proceeds to deal with the factual aspects of this matter. 17. Now, this Court proceeds to deal with the factual aspects of this matter. On 04.08.2023, Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a raid at the petitioner’s residence, pursuant to a complaint alleging that her husband demanded bribe in exchange for signing of pattas and an F.I.R. No.213/2023 was registered at the Police Station A.C.B., Jaipur under Section 7A of the P.C. Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.08.2023. She assailed the suspension order before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12675/2023, wherein the suspension order was stayed on 23.08.2023. However, subsequently, the State revoked the said suspension order vide its order dated 01.09.2023, hence, that writ petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous on 18.09.2023. 18. The petitioner was again placed under suspension on 22.09.2023 and aggrieved thereof, she submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15551/2023 before this Court. This Court partly allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 01.12.2023 whereby the suspension order dated 22.09.2023 was quashed on technical ground that the enquiry was conducted against her by a biased Officer-in-Charge of earlier Writ Petition No.12675/2023 and a direction was issued to the Government to conduct fresh enquiry against her by appointing a new Enquiry Officer and to complete the same within one month. 19. Thereafter, the Deputy Director (Regional), Department of Local Bodies (for short, “the DDR”) of the Department of Local Bodies (for short, “the D.L.B.”) was appointed as ‘Enquiry Officer’ on 24.06.2024 to conduct fresh enquiry against the petitioner. 20. The F.I.R. No.213/2023 was thoroughly investigated by the A.C.B. and the role of the petitioner was found in the incident dated 04.08.2023 occurred at the petitioner’s residence. 21. The A.C.B. submitted an application before the competent Authority seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application on 09.07.2024 before the said Authority for affording her an opportunity of being heard before granting the sanction. However, the sanction was issued on 06.09.2024 to prosecute the petitioner. 22. The Enquiry Office, i.e., the D.D.R. issued a notice under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009 to the petitioner on 11.09.2024 stating that the A.C.B. has alleged her involvement in bribery case involving a demand of Rupees Two Lakhs in exchange for issuing pattas and her husband along with other persons had been arrested in the said case. 23. 23. The petitioner submitted an application on 17.09.2024 before the DDR stating that the notice does not bear digital signature and official seal and demanded a copy of order whereby he was appointed as ‘Enquiry Officer’. 24. In the meantime, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, her husband and other co-accused persons before the Special Court, ACB, Jaipur on 17.09.2024 under Section 7A of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-B I.P.C. based on the investigation, indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the bribe incident that occurred on 04.08.2023. Presently, the petitioner, her husband and other co-accused persons are facing trial before the said Court. 25. Subsequently, on 18.09.2024, a detailed notice under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009 was served upon the petitioner, wherein it was indicated that the D.D.R. had conducted an enquiry, after providing opportunity of hearing to her and thereafter, enquiry report was forwarded to the Department, wherein the following charges were levelled against her:- 26. Without submitting any substantive reply to the above, the petitioner submitted an application for conducting enquiry against her only after affording her a proper opportunity of hearing. 27. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.09.2024, by the respondents, by passing the following order:- 28. Serious charges of corruption have been levelled against the petitioner specifying that bribe was demanded at her residence in exchange for issuing pattas during her tenure as Mayor and such conduct of the petitioner was found to be prima facie disgraceful. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against her and charge- sheet has been issued to her and she has been placed under suspension. 29. Though, no challenge has been led to the charge-sheet by the petitioner before this Court either on the ground of its validity or correctness of the charges. In any event, the veracity or correctness of the charges or allegations levelled against the petitioner, if at all challenged by her, cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In any event, the veracity or correctness of the charges or allegations levelled against the petitioner, if at all challenged by her, cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. Instead of challenging the suspension order on its merits, the petitioner has challenged the same solely on the technical counts that (1) the notice issued under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009 dated 11.09.2024 was not digitally signed, (2) copy of the order appointing Enquiry Officer was not supplied to her and (3) no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before placing her under suspension. 31. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the circular dated 29.02.2024 issued by the Department of Public Administration (for short, “the DPA”) which mandates that the matters/orders related to enquiry, court litigation and confidential matters would be submitted through e-file process. Counsel submits that the notice dated 11.09.2024 was not digitally signed by the DDR, hence, it lacks authenticity and legal sanctity. On the other hand, the learned Advocated General submitted that it is not necessary to issue each and every order digitally. The order relating to enquiry, court litigation and confidential matters can be issued manually, in terms of the Circular dated 27.12.2022. This Court finds no substance in the contention that the notice dated 11.09.2024 is invalid because it was not digitally signed. The issuance of any notice with manual signatures does not, by itself, vitiate the entire enquiry. The purpose of a signature on any document is to assign responsibility to the individual signing it and to affirm his competence and authority to do so. A signature is, therefore, crucial and its absence may render the document invalid in the eyes of the law. Hence, it is essential that any notice requiring a person to submit reply must be duly signed by the competent authority having jurisdiction in the matter. In the instant case, the notice dated 11.09.2024 bears the physical signature of the Enquiry Officer, i.e., the DDR. Hence, the notice cannot be treated as invalid solely on the ground that it was not digitally issued or signed digitally. This fact is not in dispute that several circulars have been issued by the State Government concerning the e-file module, which are executive orders issued to facilitate and streamline the filing process digitally. Hence, the notice cannot be treated as invalid solely on the ground that it was not digitally issued or signed digitally. This fact is not in dispute that several circulars have been issued by the State Government concerning the e-file module, which are executive orders issued to facilitate and streamline the filing process digitally. These circulars/orders do not derive force from any statutory Acts or Rules, rather they represent ongoing efforts of the Government to make the process transparent, fair, quick and efficient by making it digital. The Government is making all possible endavours, to make the online digital system feasible with the objective of enhancing efficiency and reducing procedural delays and minimizing paperwork. However, till date, both physical and E-File system coexist in certain departments of the Government where the matters are pertaining to enquiry/ litigation/confidential case. But, it is not mandatory that orders relating to above matters must be digitally signed. Hence, under such circumstances, the manual notice dated 11.09.2024 bearing signature of the D.D.R., i.e., the Enquiry officer is valid. Consequently, the enquiry initiated, pursuant to such notice, does not vitiate and suffers from any legal infirmity. 32. The petitioner was well-aware of the charges levelled against her and her husband, viz., accepting bribe in exchange for issuing pattas. Precisely, this was the sole allegation against her, but despite this, she submitted an application contending therein that the notice does not bear digital signature of the DDR and a copy of the order appointing the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to her. There is no provision under any law or under the Act of 2009 mandating that a copy of the order, appointing the Enquiry Officer must be supplied to the person against whom enquiry is proposed to be conducted. For similar charges, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.08.2023 and again on 22.09.2023, however, these suspension orders were revoked or quashed not on their merits, but on technical grounds. The second suspension order dated 22.09.2023 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 on the technical count that the OIC of earlier Civil Writ Petition No.12675/2023 had conducted enquiry against the petitioner, hence, he was biased. The second suspension order dated 22.09.2023 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 on the technical count that the OIC of earlier Civil Writ Petition No.12675/2023 had conducted enquiry against the petitioner, hence, he was biased. While taking note of this fact, this Court issued direction to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner by appointing a new Enquiry Officer and accordingly, a new Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24.06.2024 and these facts were well within the notice of the petitioner and are clearly reflected in her pleadings in the instant writ petition. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner was fully aware of the entire matter, however, the whole and sole intention behind submitting the application on 18.06.2024 appears to have been to delay the enquiry proceedings. 33. In the meantime, sanction was granted to prosecute the petitioner on 06.09.2024 and a charge-sheet was submitted against her under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, before the A.C.B. Court on 17.09.2024. Thus, sufficient material was available on record against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enquiry Report dated 18.09.2024 was prepared and supplied to her and upon finding her conduct disgraceful and unbecoming of the office of Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage, Jaipur, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.09.2023. 34. This Court finds that the petitioner has not challenged the charge-sheet and on the contrary, has started joining the Judicial Enquiry which is being conducted against her, in pursuance of the above charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer shall now proceed to complete the enquiry and he would be at liberty to draw his conclusion on the basis of the material placed before him. 35. The Court finds no substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that after quashing of the second suspension order dated 22.09.2023 by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15551/2023 on 01.12.2023, the petitioner was allowed to continue to hold the post of Mayor, Jaipur Municipal corporation, Heritage for a period of more than nine months and twenty seven days, while this Court passed a direction to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within a period of one month. Since, the enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner for more than nine months, she continued to hold the said post and the enquiry process commenced in the month of September, 2024 and thereafter, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.09.2024. Since, the enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner for more than nine months, she continued to hold the said post and the enquiry process commenced in the month of September, 2024 and thereafter, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.09.2024. Merely keeping a person to continuously occupy any post for a certain duration cannot, by itself, be ground a to remain continued on the said post only on the basis that the enquiry proceedings were not initiated within the period prescribed by this Court. However, at the same time, it is really surprising and shocking on the part of State-Authorities that despite the lapse of more than nine months, the State Government remained inactive and failed to timely act upon the order of this Court. The enquiry process progressed at a snail’s pace. The order was passed by this Court on 01.12.2023 to initiate and conclude enquiry within a month, but the Government remained silent till June, 2024. It was only on 24.06.2024 that an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who subsequently issued notice to the petitioner on 11.09.2024, submitted his enquiry report on 18.09.2024 and thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.09.2024. Such inaction on the part of the State officials amounts to disobedience of Court’s order as well as an attempt to commit contempt on their part, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. The non-compliance of the Court’s order for a period of more than nine months is prima facie contemptuous. 36. Contempt of the Court’s order is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very sole of justice and sanctity of legal proceedings. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply the Court’s order by failing to adhere to the judicial directions. A contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the Court’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence on the judicial system and its ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively. 37. The Courts ordinarily take a lenient approach in cases of some delay caused in compliance of the orders, unless the same is deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority. But, the lenient approach of the Court should not be taken lightly and casually by the State instrumentalities. 37. The Courts ordinarily take a lenient approach in cases of some delay caused in compliance of the orders, unless the same is deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority. But, the lenient approach of the Court should not be taken lightly and casually by the State instrumentalities. In the eventuality of the order passed by this Court is not complied with now, this Court would be constrained to pass appropriate orders, in an appropriate case. 38. It is settled principle of law that this Court would not interfere in suspension orders lightly since suspension is only a deprivation of one’s status and that too temporarily, it does not amount to penalty and it is normally ordered when the allegations of misconduct or corruption is under scrutiny. Power of this Court in such like matters should be used sparingly and that too with utmost care and caution. No exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner for interfering in her suspension order. 39. In the case of Durga Ram Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 RLW 3552 , it has been held that the issue of suspension is not to be gone into by the Court and the same should be left to the objective satisfaction of the Government. It has been held as under:- “I am of the opinion that when the matter of suspension is left to the objective satisfaction of the Government, the normal rule is that it is not unnecessarily justiciable before the High Court and the Court cannot look into the question as to whether the materials are adequate or inadequate from its point of view nor the Court should substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority.” 40. In the case of Tararam Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11814/2019, decided on 30.09.2019], it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in para 51 as under:- “The charges levelled against the petitioner and the material available, show that a judicial inquiry in the matter is imperative. In the case of Tararam Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11814/2019, decided on 30.09.2019], it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in para 51 as under:- “The charges levelled against the petitioner and the material available, show that a judicial inquiry in the matter is imperative. In case the petitioner continues to hold the office, not only the inquiry officer would be under a moral pressure, the petitioner himself will be in a position to influence the witnesses and may try to withheld, if not temper the record.” 41. In a democratic setup, public representatives serve as the voice of the people and they are entrusted with the responsibility of representing the interests and concerns of their constituents. Thus, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting their office, upholding the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct. This includes refraining from any involvement in corrupt practices, inasmuch as such actions weaken the public trust and their accountability towards the public. By maintaining unwavering commitment to transparency and the public interest, the public representatives can fulfill their duties with dignity and integrity. 42. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is a public representative, having been elected as Mayor of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage. A public representative is expected to act and conduct with dignity and graceful manner. However, in the present case, the petitioner has been charge- sheeted in a criminal case relating to offence of corruption, an offense widely regarded as ‘cancer’ for the society. 43. The facts, which have came on the record, reflect that serious charges, of taking bribe of Rupees Two Lakhs in exchange for issuing pattas, have been levelled against the petitioner, who as a public representative was holding the highest and esteemed position of Mayor in Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage. The State finding her above conduct as disgraceful, issued charge- sheet to her levelled several charges and placed her under suspension and initiated a judicial enquiry against her. Hence, in view of these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the decision of the State does call for any interference by this Court. 44. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. Conclusion & Direction:- 45. Hence, in view of these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the decision of the State does call for any interference by this Court. 44. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. Conclusion & Direction:- 45. In view of the aforesaid and upon an overall appraisal of the facts obtained and perusing the material available on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the State’s decision to place the petitioner under suspension. 46. As a consequence of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 47. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 48. The respondents are expected to complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously, as early as possible, not beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the petitioner, being an elected public representative, is under suspension and she cannot be allowed to remain under suspension for indefinite period. 49. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that respondents/authorities shall conclude the enquiry on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.