JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash the suspension order dated 7.9.90 (Annexure-A.1.) passed by the State Government. 2. I need not go into the back history of the case. Suffice it to say that a criminal case under section 302 IPC has been registered at Police Station, Sikri vide FIR No.129/89. In the said FIR, as many as, ten persons including the petitioner were implicated . Initially the case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 IPC but it appears that Smt. Surjeet Kaur succumbed to the injuries as such section 302 IPC was also added. 3. it is an admitted case of the parties that a chargesheet has been filed in the said case on 20.11.90 but still charge/charges have not been framed by the Trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension passed by the State Government is premature inasmuch as till the charge/charges are framed, It cannot be said that criminal proceeding in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a court of law. In this connection the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Banshidhar Saini v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.112311987) decided on 11.12.87 . In the aforesaid case the Division Bench has taken into consideration the previous judgments of this court including the judgment of another Division Bench in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B.Civil Writ petition No.166/1986) decided on 22.4.87 and held that the trial begins after framing of the charge/charges and it is that point of time when it can be said that the accused is facing trial with respect of an offence for which he has been accused. The D.B. further observed as under: "In Bhagwan's case, admittedly, no charge was framed and the order of suspension passed by the Government by invoking powers under Section 17(4A) was held to be illegal. The D.B. further observed as under: "In Bhagwan's case, admittedly, no charge was framed and the order of suspension passed by the Government by invoking powers under Section 17(4A) was held to be illegal. Following the ratio of the case in Bhagwan Singh's case we are of the opinion that unless a charge is framed, it cannot be said that any case is pending trial against the petitioner Sarpanch as in warrant cases, before a Magistrate, the proceedings are only inquiries upto the time when the charge is drawn up, read over and explained to the accused. It is only thereafter that the trial begins." 4. In reply the State has admitted that only a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner. 5. In view of the facts stated above, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 7.9.90 (Annexure-1) passed by the State of Rajasthan is set aside. 6. However, the State Government is free to apply its mind on the question whether the petitioner should be suspended or not after charge/charges are framed against him. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******