ORDER : N.K. Mehrotra, J. This is a petition for quashing of the suspension order dated 23.4.2003, passed by the opposite party No. 1 as contained in Annexure-1 and further to quash the order of recovery of Rs. 1,44,785.45 which has been passed by way of punishment on 28.4.2003. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.K. Bajpai, advocate for the opposite parties. 3. According to the Petitioner, the order of suspension and recovery has been passed on the same day and, therefore, the proposed enquiry is of no consequence. A perusal of Annexures-1 and 2 goes to show that Annexure-2 is not the order of punishment, it is only debit advice, so I am of the opinion that Annexure-2 cannot be treated to be an order of punishment and no recovery can be made from the Petitioner on the basis of this order. 4. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has conceded at the time of disposal of the writ petition, that it can be made clear that the order as contained in Annexure-2 should not be taken to be an order of punishment and the opposite parties have not passed any punishment order so far. 5. So far as the order of suspension is concerned, it has been contended that there is no misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and it is the transport contractor Ram Hujur Mishra who was to handle the stock and send it to the respective co-operative societies from the Railway goods-shed and the Petitioner was not involved or associated with the delivery of the stock. It is further contended that the Petitioner has not been asked to explain the misplacement of the stock and no charge-sheet has been served upon him so far. It is alleged that the order is vague, illegal and arbitrary. 6. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not responsible for the misplacement of 34.400 Metric ton of D.A.P. because he was the store keeper and he was not at all involved or associated with the delivery of the stock of D.A.P. fertilizer from the railway goods shed or transporting it to the respective co-operative societies. The responsibility is to be fixed in the contemplated enquiry. The responsibility is to be fixed in the contemplated enquiry. There is no rule, which provides that before passing the order of suspension, any opportunity to explain was required to be given. In the suspension order, the substance of the charge is required to be written. No specific charge is required to be given in the suspension order. There is no scope in the instant writ petition to interfere in the impugned order of suspension, while the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties has given statement that the Enquiry Officer has already been appointed and the enquiry shall be completed within six weeks. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed at admission stage with the directions to the opposite parties to conclude the enquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also observed at the time of disposal of the petition that the impugned order (Annexure-2) will be treated only as debit advice' and it will not be used for the purpose of recovery by way of punishment against the Petitioner.