JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is holding the post of L. D. C. in the service of Municipal Council, Jaipur since 1961 (this fact has been mentioned by learned counsel for petitioner at the time of arguments and he has shown copy of order of appointment of the petitioner to the Court). By an order dated 7.1.88 passed by the Commissioner (Hawamahal Zone), Municipal Council, Jaipur, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner submitted representation for revocation of the order of suspension. He then submitted another representation dated 17.2.88 for cancellation of the suspension order on the ground that Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary action or to act as disciplinary authority. This representation of the petitioner did not yield any result. Instead, the Commissioner (Hawamahal Zone) Municipal Council, Jaipur issued memo dated 17.3.88 for holding of an inquiry under 1958 Rules. This memo has been placed on record as Annexure-4. The petitioner filed applications dated 24.3.88 and 28.3.88 for decision of his preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner to suspend him or to initiate disciplinary inquiry against him. 2. Petitioner's case is that the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur is not his appointing authority nor is he a disciplinary authority qua the petitioner. Therefore, he had no authority to place the petitioner under suspension or to initiate disciplinary action against him. 3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 12.5.88 and after hearing the parties on 20.7.88, stayed operation of the order of suspension and also the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time the Court left it open to the competent authority to take fresh action against the petitioner. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, however states that no fresh action has been initiated against the petitioner by any other authority of the Municipal council in respect of the allegation which constitute part of the charge sheets by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur. 5. Even though the writ petition has remained pending before this Court for almost five years by now, nobody has bothered even to file a reply. For this reason the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct and the writ petition has to be decided on that basis. 5. Even though the writ petition has remained pending before this Court for almost five years by now, nobody has bothered even to file a reply. For this reason the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct and the writ petition has to be decided on that basis. 6. The order of appointment of the petitioner, which has been placed before the Court by Shri Rajendra Prasad, shows that he was appointed by the Administrator, Municipal Council. Section 310(1) (b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act says that a member of the ministerial establishment shall be appointed by a council or a board. Section 310(5) provides that a person appointed under Section 310 (1) or 310 (2) may be dismissed, removed or otherwise punished in accordance with rules than (sic then) obtaining, by the appointing authority, subject to a right of appeal from such dismissal, removal or punishment within the prescribed time limit. Since the petitioner had been appointed by the Administrator and even under Section 310 (1), the power of appointment vested in the Administrator and since no power vested in the Administrator as on 7.1.88, it has to be held that the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur has no authority ether to suspend the petitioner or to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner vide memo dated 17.3.88. Both these orders are, therefore, declared as having been without jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 7.1.88 and memo dated 17.3.88 are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******