JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14th of June 2018 (Annex.4), passed by Vikas Adhdikari, Panchayat Samiti, Raipur, District Pali. By the order impugned, petitioner, a Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Raipur, is suspended in contemplation of the Disciplinary Enquiry. 2. Assailing the impugned order, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that suspension order has been passed in gross violation of Rule 298 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is further argued by learned counsel that impugned order of suspension is not satisfying the requirements envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submits that author of the suspension order is not a competent authority and as such order is without jurisdiction. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that against the suspension order equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that impugned order has been passed against petitioner in contemplation of Disciplinary Enquiry and there is no question of violation of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. 4. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority, appears to be quite attractive but not of substance. As a matter of fact, the order of suspension though conveyed to the petitioner by Vikas Adhikari concerned but the same has been approved by competent authority, which is evident from Annex.R/2, showing minutes of the meeting of District Establishment Committee dated 18th of June 2018. 6. An order of suspension can be passed when any disciplinary proceeding is contemplated. The term "suspension" has not been defined under the Rules of 1958 but as per Oxford Dictionary, it means, "the action of suspending or condition of the suspended; the action of debarring or state of being debarred especially for a time from a function or privilege; temporary deprivation of one's office or position" 7. In Sadey Khan Vs. The term "suspension" has not been defined under the Rules of 1958 but as per Oxford Dictionary, it means, "the action of suspending or condition of the suspended; the action of debarring or state of being debarred especially for a time from a function or privilege; temporary deprivation of one's office or position" 7. In Sadey Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan [1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 443], the Court has held that if suspension order issued by an authority is approved by the competent authority then same cannot be categorized as illegal or without jurisdiction. The other ground that condition envisaged under clause (a) of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958 is not satisfied, suffice it to observe that for construing the words "in contemplation of enquiry" for suspension of an employee under the rule, when power can be exercised always depends on facts and circumstances of each case. There remains no quarrel that suspension is not a punishment. From the reply, it is clearly borne out that other disciplinary enquiries are also pending against the petitioner. Be that as it may, while refraining to make any comment on merit, in my view, petitioner is liable to be non-suited solely on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958. 8. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.