JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is a resident of Kishangarh and working as Draftsman/Surveyor in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (respondent No. 3), has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging, inter alia, that the order dated 24.6.19954 (Annex. 4), suspending the petitioner, be quashed and set aside and has further prayed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits maintaining his continuity of service. The back ground of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Draftsman /Surveyor against regular vacancy in the year 1980 by the Administrator, Municipal Board, Kishangarh. It is stated that on 21.12.1994 a meeting of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur was held in which resolution No. 5 was passed by which powers under sub-clauses (2) to (5) of section 310 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 stood vested with the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation. It is stated that in the year 1990 the petitioner was transferred to Bharatpur and within a period of two months he was transferred back to Kishangarh. In the year 1993, he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jaipur by the order of the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.5.1993 he was transferred to Municipal Board, Mount Abu and vide order dated 7.6.1993 the petitioner stood transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. Both the orders dated 25.5.1993 (Annx. 1) and 7.6.1993 (Annx. 2) were passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was lodged by one individual with the Anti-Corruption Department regarding taking of illegal gratification by the petitioner and the matter was investigated and an FIR No. 6/92 was registered in the year 1992. It is stated in the petition that challan papers have been filed in the month of June, 1995. Vide order dated 12.6.1995, passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.6.1995 (Annx. 4) the services of the petitioner were suspended. Feeling aggrieved with the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also per us act the documents on record. 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.6.1995 (Annx. 4) the services of the petitioner were suspended. Feeling aggrieved with the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also per us act the documents on record. 3. Shri Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended at the Bar that it was not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have complied with the order of transfer dated 12.6.1995 (Annx. 3) inasmuch as it had not been passed by the competent authority. As per the learned counsel, it should have been passed by the Director, Local Bodies instead of Dy. Secretary to the Government. He has further contended that as the petitioner had not joined his duties at Jodhpur after his transfer, the order of suspension, in the garb of pendency of an enquiry regarding Kishangarh, has been passed by the respondent No. 2. He has also made allegations of mala fide against the respondents. It has been contended that the respondent No. 2 has no right to issue the order of suspension (Annx. 4). 4. In the prayer clause of the petition, the petitioner has not sought any relief against the order of his transfer (Annx. 3). That apart, even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the petitioner challenges the order of his transfer (Annx. 3) during the course of arguments. in my opinion, he cannot be allowed to raise such an argument because bare perusal of orders of his transfer i.e. Annexures 1 and 2 by which he was transferred from Kishangarh to Mount Abu and then Mount Abu to Jaipur were also passed by the same authority who has passed the order of his transfer (Annx. 3). Further I find no substance in the argument that the order of his transfer has been passed malafidely because he has not impleaded party in person against whom he has made allegations of mala fide. 5. In my considered opinion, the State Government has over all control over the local bodies of the State i.e. Municipal Council or the Board and in any event the order of transfer was passed by a superior authority i.e. Dy. 5. In my considered opinion, the State Government has over all control over the local bodies of the State i.e. Municipal Council or the Board and in any event the order of transfer was passed by a superior authority i.e. Dy. Secretary to the State Government exercising the powers of the Secretary to the Government and the petitioner should not have any grievance in this regard. Further, the petitioner obviously has no grievance because a superior authority has examined the matter and then passed the order of transfer, which has admittedly not been complied with by the petitioner. 6. Perusal of sub-section (5) of section 310 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 makes it clear that a right of appeal against such punishment has been given, which provides the limit of three months under the Rules, to the following Appellate authorities : (i) State Government - in case of order passed by a Council or Board, and (ii) Council or Board - in case of order passed by the Commissioner/Chairman. The powers of the appellate authority have been delegated by the State Government by a specific notification under the Act. 7. Bare perusal of the suspension order (Annx. 4) reveals that the petitioner, who was under transfer to Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur, has been suspended as there was an enquiry pending against him regarding Municipality, Kishangarh, in exercise of the powers vested in the authority under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur i.e. by the appropriate authority. There is a criminal case pending against the petitioner at Kishangarh and there was every apprehension on the part of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation of the case. It is also well settled law that the suspension does not caste any stigma on the delinquent employee since it is neither dismissal nor removal from service. The petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. 8. It is also well settled law that the suspension does not caste any stigma on the delinquent employee since it is neither dismissal nor removal from service. The petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. 8. Even on merits the petitioner has no case since the petitioner has made a prayer for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits by maintaining his continuity in service which, in any case, is neither tenable nor has any rationale inasmuch as the petitioner has only been placed under suspension pending enquiry and since it is not a case of dismissal or removal from service, the question of reinstatement does not arise.Writ petition dismissed. *******