Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner, who is a lady Sarpanch, has challenged her order of suspension in this petition. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is absolutely illiterate woman and not able to write or read. She only put her signature on the documents prepared by the Secretary, who is an educated person. She has been made victim of politics and she has been placed under suspension. (2). Mr. Choudhary challenged the impugned order of suspension on the following grounds :(i) that the impugned order of suspension is without jurisdiction. He submitted that the Collector had no power to frame the charges against the petitioner and it has to be done only by the State Government. This arguments of Mr. Choudhary cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as the rule of business, the Collector would be the representative of the State Government, therefore, he was fully justified in framing the charges. (3). Second submission made by Mr. Choudhary that no preliminary inquiry was initiated in the matter before passing the order of suspension. It is not neces- sary that in each and every case, a preliminary inquiry should be held. If charges are of serious nature then on the prima facie material available with the authority, he/she can be placed under suspension. (4). Third submission was that before initiating inquiry, she was placed under suspension, therefore, it is bad. The very fact of placing her under suspension with the charges, shows that the inquiry was contemplated and initiated. (5). Last submission was that charges are not of serious nature, therefore, she could not have been suspended. Without expressing any opinion on merits about the charges, I am satisfied that the charges are of such nature which would definite call for her suspension. It is true that Sarpanch is an elected person but the State Government has always power to place him or her under suspension if there are serious charges against him/her. (6). In case of suspension, this Court would be slow in interfering with such orders. (7). In view of the above discussion this writ petition fails and is dismissed.