W.P. No. 9893 of 2011(s) 9.12.2011 Shri Ravindra Chhabra, counsel for petitioner. He is heard. Petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 24.11.2011. Suffice it to say that petitioner has been placed under suspension for the reason stated in the order impugned. It is quite unnecessary for us to deal with various contentions advanced at the time of hearing. This petition can be disposed off on the short ground of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal. Against the suspension order, undeniably, petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. While exercising the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court can not sit in appeal to examine merits of a suspension order as an appellate authority. It is well settled when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend a government servant under Rule 9 of 1966 Rules, suspension in such a situation is not a punishment but is only one of an administrative measure, forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay dividends and the delinquent employee could get away without punishment. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off with a liberty to petitioner to prefer an appeal against the suspension order. In case such an appeal is preferred within two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of summarily. [S.K.SETH] JUDGE BDJ