JUDGMENT R.S. RAMANATHAN, J. 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in suspending the petitioner from service vide Na. Ka. No. 132/2014/H1 dated 06.08.2014 and for consequential relief. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule 8(9) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1970, a member of service may be placed under suspension by the Disciplinary Authority where an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending. He would further submit that though in the suspension order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 6.8.2014, some misconducts have been alleged against the petitioner, the charge memos dated 23.06.2014 and 11.07.2014 were issued for his absence from reporting duty and disobeying the orders of the superiors when he was called over phone to come and remove the vehicles. He would also submit that the charges are not grave enough to place the petitioner under suspension and therefore, the suspension order is likely to be set aside. 4. Heard Mrs. Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Shiva Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent and I have also perused the materials available on record. 5. Though in the Charge Memos dated 23.6.2014 and 11.07.2014, the petitioner was asked to give explanation for not reporting duty and not obeying the orders of the superiors, in the suspension order, it has been stated that the petitioner has committed certain misconducts as stated above. The petitioner is working as a driver and as per Rule 8(9) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1970, an employee may be suspended when an enquiry into grave charges against him before the Disciplinary Authority is pending. It has been stated in the suspension order that the 3rd respondent is proposed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for the misconducts committed by him as stated in the said order. 6. At this stage, I do not want to go in detail regarding the nature of the charge whether it is grave or not as the same can be culled out from the charges to be framed against the petitioner. 6. At this stage, I do not want to go in detail regarding the nature of the charge whether it is grave or not as the same can be culled out from the charges to be framed against the petitioner. At present two charge memos were issued dated 23.6.2014 and 11.07.2014 and on that basis I cannot say whether the charges are grave or not as an enquiry was contemplated into grave charges and the misconducts were also mentioned in the suspension order. 7. In view of all the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of suspension of the 3rd respondent dated 06.08.2014. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same at the earliest after following the procedures stipulated in law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.