1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4733/02 Mukut Behari Sharma vs. Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Date of order : 5/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.B.L. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension dated 22.6.2002. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on various grounds. It has been contended that the petitioner was suspended on the basis of the findings of preliminary enquiry in which certain allegations were found prima facie proved against him. He was not accorded any opportunity of hearing. It was argued that suspension order was passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur which is the appellate authority against the order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has in this manner been prejudiced as till date no charge sheet has been served against him. The order of 2 suspension has remained stayed by this Court. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that whatever powers can be exercised by the disciplinary authority can also be exercised by the appellate authority i.e. Director, Local Bodies who acts as the Chief Controlling Authority of all the Municipalities through out the State. The writ petition be therefore dismissed. Even though the notice to the respondents was issued on 5.8.02 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and finally disposed of at this stage and such notice was served upon the respondents in the year 2002 but till date no reply to the writ petition has been filed. Even otherwise, the order of suspension has remained stayed since then because this Court vide order dated 5.8.2002 passed the stay order which has remained operative till now. It is always open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in departmental enquiry and the respondents have not informed the Court as 3 to what action they have actually taken against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry, if held any. In the facts of the case, particularly when the respondents have chosen not to contest the writ petition by filing reply, it is not considered appropriate to still continue the petitioner under suspension. The order of suspension is therefore quashed and set aside. The respondents however could be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings if the same has not already been concluded. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/