Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner who is an elected Sarpanch has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the order dated 13.4.98 (Ex.6) passed by the respondent No.3, the Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, communicating the impugned order of suspension dated 27.3.98 passed by respondent No.2, the Under Secretary (Inquiry) Village Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

(2). The impugned order of suspension dated 27.3.98, which is sought to be challenged in this petition, was never produced by the petitioner alongwith his writ petition. It came on record alongwith the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 at Annex. R/3 page 24. It is well settled that without the order being placed on reco- rd, it cannot be challenged, therefore, only on this short ground, the petition was required to be dismissed.

(3). On merits, learned counsel Shri Bhoot placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court in writ petition No.3201/98, decided on 29.10.98, whereby the suspension order of elected Chairperson, Municipal Board, was qua- shed on the ground that the preliminary enquiry was not concluded by the State Government. The learned Single Judge of this court relief upon the D.B. judgment of this court in Jan Mohd. V. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1). In my humble opinion, the aforesaid judgment of this Court will have no application on the facts of this case as the petitioner was already served with a show cause notice dated 1.12.97 (Annex.3) alongwith the chargesheet (Annex.4). Thus, the preliminary enquiry was already initiated. Looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, if the respondent authority thought it fit to place him under suspension then this Court would not interfere in such order as this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the respondent authority in the petition, which is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(4). One more submission was made that no confidence motion moved against the petitioner failed. Be that as it may. It all depends upon the authority considering the gravity and seriousness of the charges, if the authority thought it fit to suspend the petitioner then this Court would not interfere in such order in exercise of its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(5). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document