Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his suspension order (Annex.1) dated 7.10.1998. The challenge is based on several grounds including malafide alleged against the respondents that due to political rivalry the petitioner is placed under suspension. This allegation has been denied by the other side and I am also not in- clined to go into the same.

(2). Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the order of suspension but this is a case where this Court is compelled to interfere with the order of suspension. It is interesting to note that before placing the petitioner under suspension he was served with show cause notice dated 19.8.98 (Annex.2), wherein, three char- ges have been levelled against him. First charge is regarding regularisation of 5100 sq.ft. plot in favour of one Moola Ram for Rs. 20,000/-, whereas, amount of Rs. 84,999/- was to be deposited with the municipality. Thus, first allegation is that municipality has put to loss of Rs. 64,999/-.

(3). Second allegation is that a Committee was constituted by him way back on 21.1.1998 which was not in accordance with rules, therefore, the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document