Honble YADAV, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2). Perused the averments made in the writ petition. (3). The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against his impugned suspension order dated 26.9.98 (Annex.4). Suffice it to say in this regard that suspension is not a punishment, hence, it does not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. (4). It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that charges on basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No.1 are stale charges hence on basis of such stale charges suspension order passed against him deserves to be quashed. (5). The aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that if a person is involved in fraudulent activities, such fraudulent activities are hatched in secrecy with fine precision are normally detectable after long interval by disciplinary authorities. I am of the view that now in these days of crisis of confidence detection of fraudulent activities of an employee after 3 or 4 years leading to his misconduct cannot be termed to be based on stale charges. (6). It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is required to be just, reasonable and fair. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to make disciplinary proceedings equitable transfer of the petitioner from Sub-Division Office, R.S.E.B. Kolayat (Bikaner) to the office of Superintending Engineer (O & M), R.S.E.B at Sri Ganganagar where he is called upon to mark his attendance during his disciplinary proceeding deserves to be quashed. The petitioner who is ordinary Junior Engineer will not be able to keep two establishments at two places i.e. one at Kolayat (Bikaner) and other at Sri Ganganagar. (7). There is substance in the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that transfer of the petitioner from Sub-Division Office, R.S.E.B. Kolayat (Bikaner) to the office of Superintending Engineer (O & M) R.S.E.B. at Sri Ganganagar tantamounts his harassment leading denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to him in disciplinary proceeding unless it is based on the fact that his presence at his present place of posting will adversely affect the disciplinary proceedings. In absence of any fact mentioned in the order impugned in this regard the transfer of the petitioner from present place of posting to Sri Ganganagar is quashed to make the disciplinary proceedings just, fair and reasonable on the principle that justice should not be done but it must appear to others that it is being done. (8). On the aforesaid premises, the respondents are hereby directed to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at Sub-Division Office R.S.E.B. Kolayat (Bikaner). (9). In the interest of justice it is held that petitioner is not required to mark his attendance in the office of Superintending Engineer (O & M) R.S.E.B. Sri Ganganagar. (10). It is made clear that the petitioner will not leave Sub- Division Office Kolayat (Bikaner) without obtaining prior permission of the disciplinary authority or his appointing authority as the case may be. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby finally dispose of.