Rajashtan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage, against an order of the State by which she was placed under suspension owing to alleged involvement in a corruption incident along with her husband.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that instead of challenging the suspension order on merits, the petitioner had challenged the same on technical counts like the notice issued under Section 39(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 not being digitally signed, and a copy of appointment order of the Enquiry Officer not being provided to her.

Section 39 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal of member.

The Court opined that issuance of any notice with manual signatures did not, by itself, vitiate the entire enquiry. The Government was making all possible endeavours to make the online digital system feasible, however, till date both physical and E-File system co-exist in certain departments of the Government where the matters pertained to enquiry/litigation/confidential case.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that there was no provision under any law or under the Act mandating that a copy of the order appointing the Enquiry Officer had to be supplied to the person against whom the enquiry was proposed to be conducted.

Following a raid by the Anti Corruption Bureau at the petitioner's residence in relation to a complaint alleging demand of bribe by her husband, an FIR was registered and the petitioner was placed under suspension. This order was challenged, and the Court set aside suspension, and ordered the State to conduct fresh enquiry within one month.

For such fresh enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was appointed 9 months later, and the involvement of the petitioner was found in the incident. Post this, the Anti-Corruption Bureau received a sanction to prosecute the petitioner, and a charge sheet was filed against her and the other co-accused involved including her husband. Presently, the trial is on-going.

Subsequently, a detailed notice under section 39(1) of the Act was served upon the petitioner. without submitting any substantive reply to this, the petitioner submitted applications raising technical objections. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that instead of challenging the suspension order on its merits, the petitioner had raised technical objections: 1) the notice issued under Section 39 of the Act was not digitally signed; 2) Copy of appointment order of Enquiry Officer was not provided to her.

While rejecting these arguments, the Court opined that it was not mandatory that orders relating to such matters were digitally signed.

“…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.”

Further, the Court also clarified that there was no mandate under any law provision to supply the appointment order of the Enquiry Officer to person against whom the enquiry was proposed to be conducted.

The Court further rejected the argument by the petitioner that she was holding the position of Mayor for more than 9 months pending fresh enquiry as was directed by the Court while setting aside the earlier suspension, and held that,

“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.”

At the same time, the fact that the State took 9 months to initiate a fresh enquiry when it was ordered to be done within one month from order was frowned upon by the Court calling it prima facie contemptuous and disobedience of Court's order.

The Court observed that being a public representative, the Petitioner was expected to act and conduct with dignity and graceful manner, but instead she had been charged with the offence of corruption which was widely regarded as “cancer” for the society.

"The respondents are expected to complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously, as early as possible, not beyond the period of three months," it ordered and dismissed the plea.

Title: Munesh Gurjar v the State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 240

Click Here To Read/Download Order