Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner Sarpanch has challenged in this petition the impugned order of suspension dated 21.6.1999 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No.1 on account of faulty construction of the school building which has direct relevance with the future of the children including any untoward incident ta- king place in the matter like collapsing the school building, etc. (2). Balram - Upsarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who has been handed over the charge, has filed caveat in this case through Shri J.R. Beniwal, Advocate. However, he (Bal Ram) is not joined as party respondent. Considering the fact that the petitioner is challenging the suspension order therefore, learned counsel Shri Anand Purohit, one of the Standing Counsel of the respondent department, was directed to assist the Court. Mr. Soni has supplied copy of the petition during the course of the day to Mr. Purohit. (3). Heard the learned counsel Shri Soni for the petitioner, Shri Purohit for the respondents and Shri Beniwal for the caveator Shri Balram. (4). Learned counsel Shri Soni vehemently submitted that within two days of issusing notice on 19.6.1999 along with charge sheet the petitioner came to be suspended by an order dated 21.6.1999 without waiting for the reply of the petitioner. Relying upon rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1967 (for short Rules) he submitted that without following the procedure laid down under Sec.38(1) of th e Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the impugned order of suspension came to be passed in haste by the respondent No.1, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. However, learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Smt. Archana Bohra vs. State of Rajasthan (1) submitted that once the inquiry is initiated by framing charge sheet against the Sarpanch then proper opportunity of hearing is not necessary for placing a Sarpanch under suspension. Opportunity of hearing is necessary only in case of removal of Sarpanch but not in a case of suspension. I fully agree with the judgment in case of Smt. Archana Bohra (supra). (5). However, learned counsel Shri Soni tried to distinguish the said judgment by submitting that this Court in Archana Bohra`s case (supra) has not considered the provisions of Rule 22 (2) of the Rules. I fully agree with the judgment in case of Smt. Archana Bohra (supra). (5). However, learned counsel Shri Soni tried to distinguish the said judgment by submitting that this Court in Archana Bohra`s case (supra) has not considered the provisions of Rule 22 (2) of the Rules. It is well settled law that once the point in issue is decided by the court, it is to be presumed that all the relevant rules were present in the mind of the Court. However, even otherwise the submission of Mr. Soni regarding Rule 22(2) of the Rules has no substance. Rule 22(2) of the Rules reads as under:- ``If upon consideration of the report received as aforesaid or otherwise, the State Government is of the opinion that action under Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 38 is necessary, the State Government shall frame definite charges and shall communi- cate them in writing to the Chairperson, Dy. Chairperson or Member of the Panchayati Raj Institution together with such details as may be deemed necessary. He shall be required to submit a written statement within one month admitting or denying the allegations, giving his defence, if any, and whether he desires to be heard in person. The word`` or otherwise mentioned in Rule 22 (2) of the Rules clearly provides that it is always open to the State Government to place a person under suspension after initiating charge sheet. In my opinion, before passing the order of suspension the Sarpanch is not required to be heard. Only requirement under the Act or the Rules of the Panchayati Raj is that initiation of inquiry or commencement of criminal trial against the Sarpanch. In this case it is not in dispu- te that prior to passing of the impugned order of suspension against the petitioner the charge sheet was already submitted. It may be just todays before, but in my opinion, the petitioner can be suspended any time even immediately on the next day of issusing charge sheet, otherwise delayed suspension will loose its significance and importance. (6). Before parting I must state that one more judgment of Full Bench of this Court was brought to my notice in case of Bhoora Lal vs. State (2). The said judgment is clearly against the petitioner. Only difference in this case is that the said judgment was delivered on the basis of old Rules and Act. (6). Before parting I must state that one more judgment of Full Bench of this Court was brought to my notice in case of Bhoora Lal vs. State (2). The said judgment is clearly against the petitioner. Only difference in this case is that the said judgment was delivered on the basis of old Rules and Act. But, the present Rules are almost pari materia to the old Rules. (7). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.