Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his suspension order (Annex.1) dated 7.10.1998. The challenge is based on several grounds including malafide alleged against the respondents that due to political rivalry the petitioner is placed under suspension. This allegation has been denied by the other side and I am also not in- clined to go into the same. (2). Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the order of suspension but this is a case where this Court is compelled to interfere with the order of suspension. It is interesting to note that before placing the petitioner under suspension he was served with show cause notice dated 19.8.98 (Annex.2), wherein, three char- ges have been levelled against him. First charge is regarding regularisation of 5100 sq.ft. plot in favour of one Moola Ram for Rs. 20,000/-, whereas, amount of Rs. 84,999/- was to be deposited with the municipality. Thus, first allegation is that municipality has put to loss of Rs. 64,999/-. (3). Second allegation is that a Committee was constituted by him way back on 21.1.1998 which was not in accordance with rules, therefore, the said committee was dissolved by the Deputy Collector on 10.6.1998. But, the petitioner continued to allot patta by the said committee. (4). Third allegation is that he was supposed to call Boards meeting every month which he did not do it. Out of three charges, first two charges are of serious nature for which the petitioner could have placed under suspension straight away without issuing notice. From the reply (Annex.3) the charges have tried to be satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. It is only after the receipt of that reply the petitioner is placed under suspension by order dated 7.10.1998 (Annex.1). Reply of the petitioner has been brushed aside by simply observing that his reply is not found to be satisfactory. It is alleged by the other side that enquiry is also initiated against the petitioner for the aforesaid charges. The respondents may proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner. But, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, from the reply submitted by the petitioner, I am of the view that it was not a case of placing him under suspension. (5). Learned Addl. The respondents may proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner. But, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, from the reply submitted by the petitioner, I am of the view that it was not a case of placing him under suspension. (5). Learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri Jasmatia has placed heavy reliance on Section 63 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (for short the Act) and submitted that the State Government was empowered to place the petitioner under suspension after receipt of reply to the show cause notice. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Murlidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1). As stated earlier, there is no quarrel with the principle laid down by this Court. It is also true that respondent was empowered to place the petitioner under suspension under Section 63 (4) of the Act, but the word used in sub section (4) of Section 63 is `may and not must. As stated earlier, if the respondents were convinced that it was a case for suspen- sion then without waiting for anybody or without giving notice to the petitioner they could have straight away suspended him. However, on receipt of reply and the manner and circumstance under which the petitioner is placed under suspension raises a serious doubt. This Court is fully convinced on the facts of this case that it was not a case of suspension. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension Annex.1 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. (7). It is made clear that Court has only interfered with the suspension order. It will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by way of regular enquiry and if ultimately the charges are found to be proved then they will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these observations, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extend only.