JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department since 1976. He was sent on deputation on the post of Junior Engineer in the Panchayat Samiti, Siwana, in the year 1988 and he worked there upto July, 1990. Thereafter he was transferred to the Panchayat Samiti, Mandore (Jodhpur). An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and three other persons on 16.4.90, at Police Station, Samdari, regarding preparation of a forged muster-roll and irregularities committed in the bills for payment. An F.I.R. was also registered against the petitioner before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Barmer, on 14.12.90. The police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the petitioner and one Kishan Lal in the competent Court on 5.8.93. After presentation of the challan in the Court, the Chief Engineer (HQ), Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by its order dated 27.12.93, exercising the powers under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, put the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 27.12.93, passed by the Chief Engineer (HQ), Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur, placing the petitioner under suspension by this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been put under suspension merely because the challan was filed against the petitioner but this cannot be a ground for putting the petitioner under suspension and before passing the order placing the petitioner under suspension, the authority had to apply its mind looking to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations and, also, considering the fact whether it was necessary to put the petitioner under suspension, and not in an arbitrary manner. According to him, the order of suspension, in the present case, does not show that the Authority, before passing the order of suspension, considered the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the order putting the petitioner under suspension, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of a person remained under detention for forty-eight hours, the suspension is automatic but in a case where an F.I.R. is lodged or the challan in a criminal case has been filed, the suspension is not automatic and the order of suspension can be passed only after the application of mind. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over Dr. B.M. Bohra v. The State of Rajasthan and others 1991(1) RLR 383 and Sumer Singh Bhandari v. The State of Rajasthan and others, 1991(2) RLR 265 . 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is true that the order of suspension has to be passed by the Authority concerned after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner looking to the evidence collected during the investigation. If the allegations against the petitioners are such that the Authority concerned thought it proper to put the petitioner under suspension looking to the graveness of the charges, like preparation of forged muster-roll and the irregularities committed in the bills then the Authority concerned can pass the order putting the petitioner under suspension and further if the order has been passed by the authority putting the petitioner under suspension for purity of a administration, then it may not require any interference. But it is not necessary to go into the question : whether the authority was justified in putting the petitioner under suspension as the order of suspension, passed by the Chief Engineer is an appealable one as per Rule 22 of the Rules, 1958, and the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal under rule 30(1) of the Rules, 1958, can consider the legality and validity of the order passed by the Authority concerned, putting the petitioner under suspension having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Appellate Authority can, also see : whether the order of suspension, passed by the concerned Authority, was justified or not. The Appellate Authority is also competent to confirm or revoke the order putting the petitioner under suspension. As such, an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, which cannot be said to be inadequate or inefficacious. Since an efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Rules, 1958, the petitioner should approach the competent Appellate Authority by filing an appeal and may raise all these objections regarding the validity of the order which he wants to raise before this Court.The writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.Petition dismissed. *******