Honble YADAV, J.–It is outrageous to judicial conscience to notice that the petitioner is compelled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the relief which he sought earlier in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780/98 which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by preferring an appeal against the impugned order of his suspension dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short C.C.A. Rules of 1958). (2). It is pertinent to mention that while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy, it was directed by this Court that if the petitioner prefers an appeal against his impugned order of suspension dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) within a period of one week then the appropriate authority should decide the appeal within three weeks form the date of presentation of such appeal. (3). Indisputably, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 1.6.98 a copy whereof is filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is borne out from the record that despite expiry of period of three weeks from the date of submission of the appeal it was not disposed of by the competent authority which necessitated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. (4). It is revealed from perusal of record that when the aforesaid fact was brou- ght to the notice of this Court by way of present writ petition on 15.7.98 suo moto show cause notice for contempt was issued to Secretary of Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur calling him why he should not be punished for his wilful defiance of Courts order dated 27.5.98. Meanwhile it was ordered that impugned order of suspension dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) shall remain in abeyance. The Secretary of Revenue Department was also restrained from hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the C.C.A. Rules 1958. (5). The aforesaid contempt proceeding was separately registered as Contempt Petition No. 150/98 against Shri N.K. Berwa, Revenue Secretary which was finally disposed of vide order dated 20th of August, 1998, holding that non petitioner Shri N.K. Berwa had no intention to deliberately disobey the order of the this Court although it was found that the facts and circumstances reflects the lack of efficiency and interest in running the administration. (6). (6). In the present writ petition notices to show cause were issued to respondents. After service of show cause notices they have shown cause by filing reply, opposing the relief for quashing impugned suspension order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) on the ground inter alia that now charge sheet has been served on the petitioner. It is averred that basis of quashing of impugned suspension order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) is not tenable as in the writ petition the petitioner has given his own defence version with regard to shortage of cash in his Tehsil office which may form his defence in the disciplinary inquiry. According to respondents such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution otherwise it would cause prejudice to the parties in disciplinary proceeding. (7). It is averred in the reply filed on behalf of respondents that while the petitioner was handing over charge of Tehsildar, Pilibanga to the new incumbent a sum of Rs. 31,583/- was found to be short in the cash. When Collector, was informed about shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 31,583/- a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Assistant Treasury Officer who found that petitioner failed to discharge his duty leading to embezzlement and loss of Rs.31,583/- to the State. It is also averred in the reply that Board of Revenue further appointed a Special Audit Committee to thoroughly investigate in the matter regarding shortage of Rs. 31,583/- in cash. After completion of Special Audit Report, the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him under C.C.A. Rules 1958. Now charge-sheet has been furnished to him. (8). Heard. (9). Perused the materials available on the record. (10). From the aforesaid discussion,it is apparent that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the C.C.A.Rules is still pending before Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department. It goes without saying that earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1780/98 was dismissed on the ground of alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. (11). The core question involved in the present writ petition would be whether impugned suspension order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) can be quashed by issuing a prerogative writ especially when charge sheet has already been served on the pe- titioner, alleging serious misconduct against him without causing prejudice to the parties in disciplinary proceeding ? (11). The core question involved in the present writ petition would be whether impugned suspension order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) can be quashed by issuing a prerogative writ especially when charge sheet has already been served on the pe- titioner, alleging serious misconduct against him without causing prejudice to the parties in disciplinary proceeding ? My answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative. It is true that the petitioner has given his own defence version of the charges levelled against him but such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. The disputed question of fact alleged in the charge-sheet and denied by the petitioner in the present writ petition are required to be determined in disciplinary proceeding under C.C.A. Rules 1958 after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not possible at this stage to express any opinion on the defence version disclosed by the petitioner in the present writ petition otherwise it would cause prejudice to the parties in proving or disproving the charges or misconduct alleged by respondents and denied by the petitioner during disciplinary proceeding under C.C.A.Rules 1958. (12). I am of the view that the existence of decision rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780/98 against the same impugned suspension order dated 18.5.98 (Annex.4) prevents this Court from taking cognizance of the present writ petition within the meaning of Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that the existence of any judgment, order or decree prevents any Court from taking cognizance of the same dispute. (13). In the interest of justice, I direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the C.C.A. Rules 1958 within six weeks from today. This period of six weeks is granted to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue keeping in view that General Assembly Election in State is in progress. The disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law provided the petitioner extends his cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding. (14). With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of and the ad interim stay order dated 15.7.98 is hereby discharged.