Honble PATIL, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). The petitioner in this writ has questioned the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 3.7.96 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent No.2 and sought for declaring it as illegal. (3). The petitioner entered the service in the third respondent Municipal Cou- ncil, Bikaner on 24.3.1970. He was promoted to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector in 1978. According to Section 310(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act), the appointing authority of the petitioner is the third respondent Municipal Council and the same Council is the disciplinary authority under Section 310(5) of the Act. A Municipal Council constituted under the Act is an autonomous body and the State Government can exercise control over it, only upto the extent, as provided by the Act. The State Government has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the members of the Rajasthan Municipalities Subordinate and Ministerial Services. (4). The respondent no.2 without having any jurisdiction issued the impugned order dated 3.7.96 placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect pending the disciplinary proceedings as per Annexure 1. According to the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings in fact had not been initiated against the petitioner till the impugned order was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not committed any irregularity or misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings. Thus the petitioner contends that the impugned order issued by the second respondent is one passed without jurisdiction and having no authority in law. Under the circumstances the writ petition is filed for the relief as stated above. The writ petition was admitted on 23.8.96 and on the same day the operation of the impugned order Annexure 1 was stayed until further orders. The said interim order appears to be in force. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition. (6). A learned Single Judge of the Court disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by his order dated 22.10.97 made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2308/97 and connec- ted cases. By the said order all the writ petitions were dismissed. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition. (6). A learned Single Judge of the Court disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by his order dated 22.10.97 made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2308/97 and connec- ted cases. By the said order all the writ petitions were dismissed. In those writ petitions also principly similar contentions were raised, namely, Municipal Council being the appointing authority and disciplinary authority, the State Government or its officer had no authority and jurisdiction to keep the employees of Municipal Council under suspension pending enquiry. The learned Single Judge by his elabo- rate and considered order dismissed the writ petitions. I have no good reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. For the same reasons this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (7). The impugned order Annexure 1 was passed as early as on 3.7.96, almost 2 years 9 months back. There was an interim stay granted by this Court. It is now for the authorities to consider whether there is need to continue the order of suspension in case no disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and even if such proceedings were initiated whether there is a need to continue the order of suspension as on today. In any event if the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the same shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period not later than four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, and subject to the cooperation of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.