JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order Annex.19 dated 18.1.2007, whereby, he is placed under suspension by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that in the preliminary inquiry upon a complaint, the Government decided to conduct inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, therefore, while exercising power under Section 63 sub-section (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the order impugned was passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that the basis of said charge is the complaint made by one Safaiwala. The charge levelled against the petitioner reads as under: " vkjksi la0 1 ;g gS fd vki }kjk uxj ikfydk ds deZpkjh ij mudh QeZ ls lhesUV dz; ugha djus ij vki }kjk uxj ikfydk MhMokuk ds deZpkjh ds fo:) ckj&ckj bjknru >wBh f'kdk;rssa dj deZpkjh dks ekufld ihM+k igqapkbZ gSA ftlds fy, vki vkjksfir gSA " 3. According to the petitioner, he is an elected ward member and complainant-respondent No. 5 is working on the post of 'Safai karamchari', who has managed his posting in different cells and the Executive Officer vide order dated 19.7.1991 allowed him to work as process server. Vide order dated 25.2.2005, the respondent No. 5 was again deputed to work on his original post as 'Safai Karamchari' but he did not join the duties, therefore, a notice was issued to him on 28.5.2006 but again the respondent No. 5 did not join the duties. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the effect that despite specific order dated 25.2.2005 respondent No. 5 is not joining duties and defying the order passed by the Executive Officer. In this regard explanation was also sought by the Regional Deputy Director, Local Bodies, Ajmer from the Municipal Board, Deedwana. 4. The petitioner after elected as Member of the Municipal Board, Deedwana came to know about the irregularities being committed by the respondent No. 5 and also came across the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the State Government, wherein, specific provision has been made that persons working as 'Safai karamchari' cannot be deputed for other work and a direction was issued by the Director, Local Bodies that such employees should continue to work only as 'Safai karamchari'. 5. 5. In view of the above order, when a complaint was filed against the respondent No. 5 before the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, the respondent No. 5 was posted as 'Safai karamchari' but he did not join his duties as 'Safai karamchari', therefore, explanation was sought from him vide notice dated 29.7.2005. 6. Upon aforesaid circumstances, in order to settle score with the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 made a complaint against the petitioner before the Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the effect that petitioner is trying to harass him because he belongs to 'Harijan' caste. The main allegation against the petitioner so levelled by the respondent No. 5 is that petitioner being a cement dealer, pressurised him to purchase cement from his firm and upon his refusal to oblige, the respondent No. 5 has been harassed. It is also alleged in the complaint that due to intervention of petitioner, respondent No. 5 was reverted back to the post of 'Safai karamchari'. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that respondent No. 5 is working as class IV employee and he is nothing to do with the purchase of cement but only to implicate the petitioner in a false case, a complaint was filed and upon that an inquiry was instituted against the petitioner, so also he was also placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the face of it, the allegations are false and there is no question of pressurising a 'Safai karamchari' to purchase cement from his firm. Therefore, the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner have no foundation in the eye of law. The petitioner in this case is assailing the order of suspension, which is said to be passed on the basis of so called complaint upon which inquiry was instituted. Therefore, it is prayed that further proceedings in pursuance of the suspension order may be stayed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that on the basis of complaint lodged against the petitioner by an employee of Municipal Board inquiry was instituted and he was charge sheeted, in which he is participating so also a reply has been filed by the petitioner before the inquiry officer. It is submitted that there is no error in the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that there is no error in the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner. 9. After hearing both the parties and perusing entire pleadings of the case, I am of the opinion that when inquiry is going on against the petitioner, it is not proper to decide the merit of the case. It is within the jurisdiction of the respondent to complete the inquiry, therefore, no interference is required in the inquiry so commenced against the petitioner because it is for the inquiry officer and competent authority to arrive at a finding after completion of inquiry. However, admittedly, at the time of issuance of notice, this Court has passed the order on 13.2.2007, whereby, operation of order dated 18.1.2007 (Annex.19) was stayed and that order is in existence till today. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to quash the suspension order and to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of six months from today. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with above directions.Writ petition disposed of. *******