Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner-Sarpanch has challenged in this petition the statement of charge at Annex.1 and prayed that the State Government may be restrained from proceeding to hold enquiry against the petitioner as per the communication dated 28.5.99 (Annex.1) and the same communication may also be quashed. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 8.6.99 (Annex.2) in this petition. However, learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mridul has restricted his challenge only to the impugned order of suspension dated 8.6.99, therefore, I am required to consider his challenge to the impugned order of suspension at Annex.2, only. (2). Against the petitioner, serious charges of mis-appropriating the public fund running into lakhs of rupees have been levelled and during the pendency of the inquiry, he has been placed under suspension. For the same allegations, a criminal case no. 25 has been registered against him on 8.2.99 for the offence under Sec. 409 I.P.C. (3). Learned counsel Mr. Mridul vehemently submitted that till the charge is framed against the petitioner, he cannot be suspended as Sarpanch under Sec. 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. This contention has been dealt with exhaustively by me in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2931/99 and for the reasons recorded in it, this contention is rejected. (4). Mr. Mridul then submitted that when the criminal case was registered against the petitioner then the respondent could not have initiated departmental enquiry against him and placed him under suspension on that count also. When such serious charges of misappropriation of public fund is levelled against the petitioner, then I am of the opinion that the departmental enquiry can simultaneously go on against the petitioner along with criminal proceedings. It is well known fact that nowadays, it takes a lot of time in deciding the criminal cases and it is the general tendency of the accused to prolong the delay once they are out on bail. When there are serious charges of misappropriation of public fund at a large scale then on the facts of this case, I am fully convinced that the petitioner should have been placed under suspension and he is rightly placed under suspension. (5). Except the aforesaid contentions, no other contention was raised. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.