( 1. ) THE petitioner/appellant has challenged before the learned Single Judge his second order of suspension. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has observed that considering the ratio of the decision in the case of U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Rajiv Rajan, reported in [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 483] the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner again appears to be proper. There is no reason to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the Board.

( 2. ) THE learned Counsel of appellant relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M. P. and Anr. v. Omprakash Gupta and Anr. , reported in 2001 (2) MPLJ 690, contended that the order of second suspension amounts to review. However, on perusal of the second order of suspension (Annexure P-1) it appears to us that the petitioner was first suspended on account of his arrest in a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 460 and 472, IPC registered at Police Station, Hanumanganj, Bhopal. The first order of suspension was revoked by 7-9-1993 by the order of Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Thereafter the second order of suspension under que