SBCWP NO.1544/2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR. O R D E R Kishan Lal Kumawat and others Versus State of Rajasthan and others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.1544/2008. Date of order :- 19/2/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Arvind Bhardwaj for the petitioners. ***** By this writ petition petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 19/12/2007 and continuation of the order dated 24/9/2007 whereby respondent No.2 has been suspended on a complaint made by the petitioner for the irregularities being carried out in the gram panchayat. Respondent No.2 was holding the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kachroda. It is submitted that government thereafter withdrew the order of suspension by another order dated 19/12/2007 even though the regular enquiry under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Rules, 1996 was still pending. Learned counsel has argued that according to Section 28(4) of the Rules, in case of every such enquiry, the elected representatives of the panchayat raj institution has to be placed under suspension and once suspended, the order should be reviewed by the State only by recourse to Section 97(3) of the Act for withdrawing it. Section 97(3) SBCWP NO.1544/2008. inter-alia provided that the State Government may of its own motion or on any application may by common interest, within 90 days from the date of passing such order, review order passed by it under said order whether of law or fact or in ignorance of any material fact. Learned counsel therefore argued that the impugned order is illegal. Same is therefore liable to be set-aside. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material forming part of record, I find that though the regular enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.2 but the government thereafter contrary to the preliminary enquiry report of the SDO Sambharlake, revoked the suspension of the respondent No.2 but, in my view, in every department enquiries, the representatives of the panchayati raj institutions shall have to be compulsorily placed under suspension, does not appear to be well founded. Section 38(4) clearly provides that the State Government may sustain any member including the Deputy Chairman against whom an enquiry has been initiated. Argument that such Chairperson/Deputy Chairperson has necessarily to be placed under suspension is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel on later part of section which further provides that such person again whom enquiry has been initiated shall stand debar from taking part in any proceedings of the panchayat raj institution while being under suspension. Subsequent part of sub- SBCWP NO.1544/2008. section (4) would come into play when earlier part has been applied and invoking that power, government has decided to place the Chairperson/Deputy Chairperson under suspension. Government then got the power to sustain the elected representative, it has also got the power to decide to withdraw the order of suspension by exercising its power with reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Argument that the provision with regard to review of Section 97 would be untenable in such a situation is also devoid of any substance because Section 97 refers to quasi judicial powers to the State while hearing a review petition and it is for that purpose that sub-Section (3) refers to sub-Section (1) of Section 97 where the State Government decide such revision petition upon seeking to review its order if it is shown that same was made by mistake whether on fact or on law particularly in ignorance of the fact. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil