ORDER : SANJEET PUROHIT, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the validity and propriety of the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annx.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 - Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur whereby, while invoking the powers under proviso to Section 38 (1) read with (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, has declared the petitioner disqualified to contest election for next five years. 2. The writ petition is filed with following facts :- 2.1 The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Makri, Panchayat Samiti Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, and diligently and honestly discharged his duties throughout his five-year tenure. Upon completion of his tenure, by virtue of the Notification dated 13.02.2025, the petitioner was appointed as the Administrator of the said Gram Panchayat. 2.2 It was stated that, owing to political vendetta, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta, Government of Rajasthan, alleging irregularities in the development works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat during the petitioner’s tenure. The Office of the Lokayukta forwarded the said complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, for conducting an inquiry. 2.3 In pursuance thereof, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted by a five-member committee, which, in its report dated 09.01.2024, observed certain administrative, technical, and financial irregularities in the works executed by the Gram Panchayat, Makri. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that a District-Level Inquiry be initiated. 2.4. In continuation thereof, another inquiry was conducted by a committee headed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Neem Ka Thana. The committee made observations that the petitioner, along with certain departmental officials, had committed irregularities. 2.5 The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, vide communication dated 24.05.2024, forwarded the inquiry report to the Divisional Commissioner, Sikar, recommending initiation of proceedings under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) along with recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The committee further recommended that disciplinary action be initiated against the concerned departmental officials. 2.6 After the lapse of nearly a year, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, vide letter dated 25.03.2025, served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner under Rule 22(2) of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), framing three charges against him and directed him to submit his explanation. 2.6 After the lapse of nearly a year, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, vide letter dated 25.03.2025, served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner under Rule 22(2) of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), framing three charges against him and directed him to submit his explanation. In response, the petitioner, vide communication dated 17.04.2025, furnished his detailed reply, categorically denying all the allegations and asserting that the requisite procedures had been duly followed in the execution of the development works after obtaining proper administrative and financial sanction from the competent authority. On 21.05.2025, the petitioner also personally appeared before the said authority and reiterated his stand, emphatically maintaining that he was not guilty of any misconduct. 2.7 It was further stated that, apart from the aforesaid proceedings, no regular inquiry as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 was ever conducted. Nevertheless, respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2025, held that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was unsatisfactory and declared the petitioner guilty of misconduct amounting to disgraceful conduct. Consequently, by invoking the powers conferred under the proviso to Section 38 (1)(b), read with (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the petitioner was declared disqualified from contesting or participating in election for a period of five years. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order for either removal or declaring a member of Panchayati Raj Institution as guilty of misconduct under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994 can only be passed after undertaking detailed enquiry as mandated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. The order under (3) of the Act of 1994 is only a consequence of the order so passed under (1) of the Act of 1994 and for which, the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is mandatory pre-requisite. However, in the present case, the order impugned has been passed in clear defiance of the mandatory provisions of of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. Further, the impugned order, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been lawfully passed without affording the petitioner to participate in a detailed enquiry. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Further, the impugned order, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been lawfully passed without affording the petitioner to participate in a detailed enquiry. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore vehemently asserted that the malafides on the part of the respondents is writ large. The predetermined and hasty course of action adopted by the respondents unmistakably demonstrates that the decision to disqualify the petitioner from contesting elections for five years is clearly politically motivated, having been taken in view of the forthcoming Panchayat elections and with the sole intent of sabotaging and prematurely ending the petitioner’s political career. 3.2 To reinforce said arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore relied upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of Roshani Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in 2013 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 648 Pankaj Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (D. B. Special Appeal Writ No. 962/2021) decided on 16.12.2021; Balbir Sharma vs. State & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2227/2004) decided on 20.05.2008 and Ram Singh Rajpurohit vs. State of Rajasthan and. Ors. reported in RLW 2008(2) Raj. 1848 4. Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General representing the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the reply, submitted that as a matter of fact allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The Committee headed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad - Neem Ka Thana, after conducting detailed enquiry and analyzing the record of the Gram Panchayat, has recorded a clear finding that several administrative as well as financial irregularities were found in the development works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat during the tenure of the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence and the action of the petitioner clearly amounts to disgraceful misconduct. 4.1 Learned AAG further submitted that while highlighting the issue of irregularities committed by the Gram Panchayat Makri, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 16322/2024 was filed, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court issued the directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur to take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. In pursuance of the said directions, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has passed the order impugned, therefore, the same cannot be said to be unjustified. In pursuance of the said directions, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has passed the order impugned, therefore, the same cannot be said to be unjustified. 4.2 It was stated that the Enquiry Committee has already found the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence and since his tenure was over, the appropriate order was passed by invoking the powers under proviso to Section 38 (1)(b) read with (3) of the Act of 1994, which does not warrant any interference. 4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a circular issued by the State Government on 28.09.1999 wherein, it was provided that in case, where the allegations of misconduct are levelled against the member of the Panchayati Raj Institution, the guidelines were issued for expedite disposal of such complaints and powers have been given to the concerned Divisional Commissioner to take appropriate action in such cases. Thus, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur was well within the jurisdiction and the same was rightly being passed. 5. I have heard rival submission advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The principle ground raised by the petitioner is that although, Section 38 of the Act of 1994 provides the powers to the State Government for removal of a member of the Panchayati Raj Institution, however, the same can only be passed after conducting enquiry as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. Such enquiry can be continued even after expiry of term of the Panchayati Raj Institution. It is further contended that (3) of the Act of 1994 provides for the consequences of any such order being passed under (1) of the Act of 1994 i.e. in case, a member is removed or found guilty under (1) then, such person shall be debarred or disqualified from participating in further elections for five years. 6.1 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for invoking the powers under Section 38 (1) or its consequential order under (3) of the Act of 1994, the enquiry as prescribed and mandated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is essential. For ready reference, is quoted below :- " 38. 6.1 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for invoking the powers under Section 38 (1) or its consequential order under (3) of the Act of 1994, the enquiry as prescribed and mandated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is essential. For ready reference, is quoted below :- " 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. (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 1 [:]. (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 1 [:]. [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." 6.2 The enquiry required to be undertaken for invoking powers under Section 38 (1), is prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. For the sake of convenience, the provisions contained in Rule 22 are reproduced as below :- " Rule 22. Procedure of enquiry. - (1) Before taking any action under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 38, where on its own motion or upon any complaint the State Government may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer 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-sec. (2) If, upon consideration of the report received as aforesaid or otherwise, the State Government is of the opinion that action under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 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 admitting 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, appoint an Enquiry Officer and also nominate any person to present the case before Enquiry Officer on behalf of the State. (4) Enquiry Officer shall consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant 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 therefor, 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. (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." 6.3 A bare reading of said provision shows that a detailed procedure has been prescribed and required to be followed before taking any final action under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994. Provided that findings shall be recorded against them if term of election of such Panchayati Raj Institution has already expired." 6.3 A bare reading of said provision shows that a detailed procedure has been prescribed and required to be followed before taking any final action under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994. Since the provides for removal or declaring an elected representative guilty of misconduct, and the consequence of the same as provided under (3) of the Act of 1994 are grave in nature, the action under that provision cannot be taken in summary manner, but only after a detailed enquiry and after providing proper opportunity to the member of the Panchayati Raj Institution to defend his case. The proper opportunity to dfened as the charges, for the purpose of requires, holding a preliminary enquiry for the purpose of forming an opinion for initiating the action under (1) under Rule 22(1) and framing and issuing a definite charge-sheet against the incumbent under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996. Rule 22(3) provides for appointment of an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer on behalf of the State Goverment. Sub-rule (4) provides for consideration of documentary as well as oral evidence and also provides the right of delinquent member to cross-examine the witnesses. Sub-rule (6) provides that the Act of 1959 shall be applicable for summoning of witnesses and production of documents. Sub-rule (7) requires for grant of opportunity of hearing to the incumbent regarding the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and only upon the finding of the enquiry officer any order under section 38 (1) read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996, either of removal or declaring the member of the Panchayati Raj Institution as guilty of misconduct can be passed by the State Government. 6.4 During the course of arguments, AAG Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, on instructions has informed that no enquiry officer as required under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1996 was appointed and procedure as provided under Rule 22(3) to 22(7) of the Rules of 1996 was not followed. 6.5 The law in this regard is well settled that for taking any action under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994, the enquiry as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is sine qua non. 6.5 The law in this regard is well settled that for taking any action under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994, the enquiry as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is sine qua non. But, here in the instant case, the above procedure has not been followed. Only charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after declaring his reply to be non-satisfactory, the order impugned has been passed. 6.6 This Court in the case of Roshani Devi (supra) has set aside the order of removal of the Sarpanch on the same count that the enquiry as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 was not conducted. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below :- “The provisions contained in Rule 22 of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 are mandatory in nature. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondents that before passing of the order dated 21.06.2011 (Annex.4), the procedure as provided under Rule 22 has not been followed. In view of the fact that before passing of the order dated 21.06.2011 (Annex.4) while exercising power under Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994, the procedure for enquiry laid down under Rule 22 of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 has not been followed, thus, the order dated 21.06.2011 (Annex.4) is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed." 6.7 Similarly, in the case of Ram Singh Rajpurohit (supra), this Court has held as under :- "19. It is true that in exercise to the power conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22, the State Government may appoint an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against a member of Panchayati Raj institution including Chairperson and Dy. Chairperson. But then, such inquiry officer is under an obligation to conduct the inquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1994 and the principles of natural justice. A perusal of the material on record reveals that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the most of the witnesses namely, Smt. Manju Devi, Rekha, Phulki and other witnesses, who were shown to be the labourers employed for execution of the work. A perusal of the material on record reveals that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the most of the witnesses namely, Smt. Manju Devi, Rekha, Phulki and other witnesses, who were shown to be the labourers employed for execution of the work. It is relevant to mention here that the specific averments made in this regard by the petitioner in the writ petition has not been specifically denied and no material has been placed on record to show that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses but, he has not availed the opportunity. It is pertinent to note that in para No. 13, the petitioner has specifically averred that the statement of said witnesses were recorded in his absence and no opportunity to cross examine them was given to him. In reply to the para No. 13, all that has been stated by the respondents is that "the. contents of para 13 of the writ petition do not need any reply". In this view of the matter, it can safely a concluded that the inquiry officer has not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the inquiry conducted in gross violation of the principle of natural justice stands vitiated on this count also. 20. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner goes to show that he has not examined the material on record in its entirety and objectivity. The statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner in his defence have not been examined by the learned Divisional Commissioner and regarding them all that has been said is that the inquiry officer has not found the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner as reliable in view of the similar language used by the witnesses in their affidavits and statements. Suffice it to say that non consideration of the relevant evidence on record by the Divisional Commissioner amounts to denial of fair hearing Jo the person affected. 21. Lastly, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for misconduct committed by him in discharge of his duties as Sarpanch, therefore, essentially the proceedings initiated was for his removal from the office in terms of Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1994. As per provisions of Sub-section (3) of , if a member or Chairperson or Dy. As per provisions of Sub-section (3) of , if a member or Chairperson or Dy. Chairperson is removed under Sub-section (1) or against whom a finding is recorded under the proviso to Sub-section (1), after expiry of term of the Panchayati Raj institution concerned, shall not be eligible for being chosen under the of 1994 for a period of five years from the date of his removal. Thus, on removal from the office of misconduct being proved, a member or Chairperson or Dy. Chairperson of Panchayati Raj institution shall stand disqualified automatically by operation of law. 22. Section 39 of the Act of 1994 deals with cessation of the memberships. As per provisions of Section 39(1) (a) & (c) of the Act of 1994, a member of a Panchayati Raj institution shall not be eligible to continue to be such member if, he is or becomes subject to any of disqualification specified in Section 19 or he is removed from the membership. As per Sub-section (2), whenever it is made to appear to the competent authority that the member has become ineligible to continue to be a member of any of the reasons specified in Sub-section (1), the concerned authority may after giving him an opportunity of being heard declare him to have become so ineligible and thereupon, he shall vacate his office as such member. In this view of the matter, the order declaring the post to be vacant on account of disqualification said to have been incurred must precede by an order of removal. In the instant case, without passing an order of removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairperson of the Gram Panchayat, Rupawas in terms of Section 38 on the basis of charges of misconduct being proved against him, he has been declared disqualified and the post of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rupawas has been declared vacant. Thus, the proceeding initiated and orders impugned passed by the respondent authority are not in consonance with the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1994. Even, the State Government has granted the approval in mechanical manner without appreciating the correct factual and legal position. 23. Thus, viewed from any angle, the orders impugned passed by the respondent authority are ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Even, the State Government has granted the approval in mechanical manner without appreciating the correct factual and legal position. 23. Thus, viewed from any angle, the orders impugned passed by the respondent authority are ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. 6.8 The right to contest elections is not merely a privilege but a legal right that emanates from the statutory framework governing democratic participation. While such a right may be subject to reasonable restrictions and qualifications as prescribed by the relevant statute but any measure that seeks to deprive or disqualify a person from exercising this right must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, due process prescribed under relavant statute and procedural fairness. In this regard, it is imperative to emphasize that the disqualification or debarment of an individual from participating in future elections have serious and penal consequence that cannot be imposed arbitrarily or on the basis of preliminary findings. A preliminary inquiry, does not provides the affected party full and fair opportunity to contest the allegations, nor does it involve a comprehensive examination of evidence or application of judicial or quasi-judicial scrutiny. Therefore, any conclusion reached at the stage of preliminary inquiry is tentative, inconclusive, and not determinative of guilt or culpability. To allow such a preliminary assessment to form the basis for disqualifying an individual from exercising their right to contest elections would not only amount to violation of due process but also undermine the sanctity of democratic participation. 6.9 In view of the said settled position of law, the order impugned for declaring the petitioner as guilty of misconduct and consequently, holding him disqualified for contesting election for next five years cannot be allowed to sustain. 6.10 The contention raised by the learned AAG – Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur that the order impugned is justified because the same has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its order dated 06.12.2024, is wholly misconceived. The order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is quoted below :- "1. This PIL has been filed alleging misuse of public funds by respondent Nos.6 to 15. 2. It appears that certain complaints have been made and Gram Panchayat, Makdi prepared an enquiry report on the basis of instructions given by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Neem Ka Thana. The order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is quoted below :- "1. This PIL has been filed alleging misuse of public funds by respondent Nos.6 to 15. 2. It appears that certain complaints have been made and Gram Panchayat, Makdi prepared an enquiry report on the basis of instructions given by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Neem Ka Thana. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar forwarded the enquiry report alongwith the recommendation for initiation of disciplinary action on 24.05.2024. 3. It appears that as no action has been initiated, this PIL has been filed. 4. Without commenting upon merits at this stage, we areinclined to dispose of this PIL with the direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Division Sikar to examine the material placed before him vide communication dated 24.05.2024 and if no decision has been taken on the same so far, to take appropriate decision within a reasonable period preferably three months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. The PIL is accordingly, disposed of." As a matter of fact, the order dated 06.12.2024 has been passed without commenting upon the merits of the case and only a direction has been issued for to expedite the action upon the complaint made by the complainant. As a matter of fact, there is no specific direction given by the Hon’ble Division Bench to dispense with the mandatory statutory enquiry, nor any such inference can be drawn contrary the mandate of the statute. In such circumstances, the order dated 06.12.2024 cannot be a justified ground to bypass the statutory enquiry, which is mandatory pre-requisite for passing an order under Section 38 (1) and 38(3) of the Act of 1994. 6.11 This Court has also considered the circular dated 28.09.1999 issued by the State Government, wherein only guidelines have been provided for expeditious disposal of the complaints of misconduct against the members of the Panchayati Raj Institution. The clause 3 of the said circular clearly provides that on receipt of the preliminary enquiry report, the Divisional Commissioner after recordings its satisfaction can send the matter for detailed enquiry to the Chief Executive Officer / Additional District Collector. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said circular dated 28.09.1999 is of no relevance in the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that a circular cannot override the effect of statutory provisions. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said circular dated 28.09.1999 is of no relevance in the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that a circular cannot override the effect of statutory provisions. 7 As an upshot of the above discussion, it is concluded that the petitioner being an elected representative, cannot be held guilty of misconduct and cannot be disqualified from contesting the elections only on the basis of summary enquiry, without complying the complete procedure as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. 8. So far as the prayer made in the writ petition regarding repayment of amount already deposited by the petitioner is concerned, it is found that the recovery notice dated 27.06.2024 itself has not been challenged by the petitioner and the amount has been deposited by the petitioner voluntarily without any protest. Even, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed said prayer, therefore, same cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 9. Therefore, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur is quashed and set aside. 10. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.