JUDGMENT : 1. By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside his suspension order dated 30.11.2022 with all consequential benefits including to give posting, seniority, full salary and allowances etc. 2. On issuance of notices, respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and has raised a preliminary objection that the order of suspension, being not a punishment order, is appealable before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter “Tribunal”) within the scope of Section 2(f) (v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter “the Act of 1976”) and therefore, when petitioner have an alternative remedy of appeal against his suspension order, but has not availed the alternative remedy, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained and as such on this ground alone, the writ petition be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in case of Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan: DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.662/2022 decided on 25.05.2022. Apart from raising the preliminary objection, reply has also been submitted on merits as well. 3. On the issue of preliminary objection, learned counsel for petitioner urged that having an alternative remedy to petitioner, does not deprive the petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court as it is well settled legal position that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise the powers of judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly, in facts and circumstances like the present case where the impugned order of suspension has been passed arbitrarily and in excess of jurisdiction by the authority as much as without adhering to the principle of natural justice. The suspension of petitioner placing reliance on a factual report is ex facie illegal, being against Clause 45 of the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules (hereinafter “PWF&A Rules). There is no such order issued by the Finance Department or Administrative Department or no such guidelines issued in rem, which expressly excludes the mention of price variation from the bids of Jal Jeevan Mission. There is no such order issued by the Finance Department or Administrative Department or no such guidelines issued in rem, which expressly excludes the mention of price variation from the bids of Jal Jeevan Mission. However, petitioner has been placed under suspension, only on account of inclusion of price variation in NIB No.03/2022-23, that too in contemplation of the departmental enquiry in this respect. It has been pointed out that from the date of issuance of order of suspension dated 30.11.2022, a period of more than three months has expired but no charge-sheet to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been served so far and it is not a case where petitioner is having any criminal charges or charges of corruption, therefore, as on date, the continuation of order of suspension is unwarranted and against the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India [ (2015) 7 SCC 291 ]. Counsel for petitioner has also urged that the suspension order has been passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government and later on same has been approved by the Department of Personnel vide order dated 13.12.2022, as contended by respondents. According to respondents, departmental appeal under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter “the CCA Rules, 1958”) is not permissible against the impugned suspension order. Counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court that in case of Jahangir Ali Khan (supra), the Division Bench has observed that the suspension order should not be extended beyond three months, if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent employee and has held that law to this effect declared by the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is winding force on all Courts and the Tribunals, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in such peculiar facts and circumstance, this Court may exercise its powers of judicial review and may entertain the instant writ petition against the order of suspension. 4. Therefore, in such peculiar facts and circumstance, this Court may exercise its powers of judicial review and may entertain the instant writ petition against the order of suspension. 4. In addition to above, counsel for petitioner has humbly urged that petitioner is an officer of State service to the rank of Chief Engineer in P.H.E. Department, who as per Rule 13 (i) and (ii) of the PWF&A Rules happens to be the head of department and is responsible to Government of Rajasthan and as per Rule 18 (i) and (ii), the Additional Chief Engineer is responsible to the Chief Engineer and the Government. However, the headquarter of petitioner during period of his suspension, has been posted in the office of Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. area, Bikaner it means before the Junior Officer to the rank of petitioner, which is wholly arbitrarily and colourable exercise of powers by respondents to harass and humiliate the petitioner, thus to this extent as well, the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 is prima facie and wholly unsustainable in law. 5. Counsel for petitioner, in humble voice has urged, as an alternative argument that in any case if this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage and relegates the petitioner first to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal till the time, petitioner approach to the Tribunal, the impugned order of suspension be stayed or at least the headquarter of petitioner during period of his suspension be ordered to change either before the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D. Secretariat, Jaipur and the Tribunal may be directed to consider the appeal, filed by petitioner on merits expeditiously as early as possible. 6. Counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner, while working as Chief Engineer (PMU, RRWS & FMP) Nagaur invited online bids through e-procurement, Rajasthan System, in reference to NIB No.01/2022-23, NIB No.02/2022-23 and NIB No.03/2022-23 dated 29.09.2022 and included the provision of price variation, in the NIB No.03/2022, in violation to the new guidelines of Jal Jeevan Mission and also disclosed the justified rates before opening the final bids, thus, petitioner has committed gross irregularities and has disobeyed the directions of the Government in issuing the NIBs in question. Petitioner also disobeyed the Government instructions issued vide order dated 1.11.2022, therefore, petitioner was initially put under APO vide order dated 03.11.2022 and later on after receiving the factual report in respect of inclusion of price variation clause in NIB No.03/2022-23, arbitrarily and against instructions of Joint Government Secretary, Finance Department dated 06.07.2022, petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Government invoking powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him. The suspension of petitioner has been approved by the Department of Personnel and now the memo of charges have also been framed against the petitioner; since petitioner is a State officer of the rank of Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., as such, before issuance of charge-sheet against him, the approval of the DOP is required which is in process and thus the issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner is under way. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition involves disputed question of facts as also of law, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. The instant writ petition was filed by petitioner on 11.12.2022, assailing his suspension order dated 13.11.2022 so also the factual report dated 28.11.2022 of Additional Chief Engineer, Region Ajmer to whom charge of office of Chief Engineer (PMU, RRWS & FMP) Nagaur has been handed over, in place of petitioner. The suspension order of petitioner has been passed placing reliance on such factual report. According to the petitioner, before preparing the factual report on the issue in question in respect of inclusion of the provision of price variation in the NIB No.03/2022-23, neither any explanation from the petitioner was asked nor statements of petitioner were recorded and the factual report is in utter ignorance to the Clause 45 of the PWF&A Rules which permits, price variation to be admissible in respect of Jal Jeevan Mission. According to petitioner, executive instructions cannot prevail over the statutory rules. Petitioner has also placed on record the letter dated 11.01.2023 wherein the Finance Department has provided information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that no separate order has been issued by the Finance (G&T) Department regarding exemption of price variation under Clause 45 of PWF&A Rules for Jal Jeevan Mission. Petitioner has also placed on record the letter dated 11.01.2023 wherein the Finance Department has provided information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that no separate order has been issued by the Finance (G&T) Department regarding exemption of price variation under Clause 45 of PWF&A Rules for Jal Jeevan Mission. Petitioner has also placed on record a show cause notice dated 10.02.2023, issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation in respect of inclusion of provision of price variation in the NIB No.03/2022-23, failing which the disciplinary action against petitioner would be undertaken. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry, vide order dated 30.11.2022 and till issuance of the show cause notice dated 10.02.2023, no departmental enquiry was initiated. Even counsel for respondents admits non-issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner so far and states that issuance of charge-sheet, is under the way. It is true that the period of 90 days has completed to the suspension of petitioner, during the course of writ petition and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), followed by the Division Bench of this court in Jahangir Ali Khan (supra), the suspension order should not be extended beyond three months, if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent employee. Even it has also been observed that if on facts it is found that the charge-sheet has not been filed or memorandum of charges, in the event, the department decides to hold departmental enquiry, has not been issued within three months, the suspension order would come to an automatic end. Be that as it may, in the present case, such position has emerges during the course of writ petition and there are several other issues, which requires consideration on merits, on facts as also on law, in the present case. 9. Be that as it may, in the present case, such position has emerges during the course of writ petition and there are several other issues, which requires consideration on merits, on facts as also on law, in the present case. 9. On overall consideration of contentions made by counsel for both parties, factual as well as legal, enunciated hereinabove, more so taking into consideration the preliminary objection raised by respondents and, in order to maintain parity among the cases, come up before the High Court against the suspension order directly, without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, if available, this Court is of the opinion that in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jahangir Ali Khan (supra) wherein it has been held that the definition under Clause (v) of Sub-Section (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 1976 is very wide and the order of suspension is not excluded to fall from its scope, it would be just and proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal against his order of suspension before the Tribunal as provided under the Act of 1976. In respect of Section 4(A) of the Act of 1976, respondents have already contended that the order of suspension has been passed by the Government which has been approved by the DOP, therefore, no departmental appeal under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is permissible thereagainst. This Court is of the opinion that the grounds on which the petitioner has assailed the suspension order, obviously can be raised by the petitioner in appeal before the Tribunal and needless to observe that the Tribunal would consider each and every ground in accordance with law on merits. 10. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by respondents for not entertaining the writ petition, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner against the impugned suspension order, succeeds and is decided in favour of respondents. 11. 10. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by respondents for not entertaining the writ petition, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner against the impugned suspension order, succeeds and is decided in favour of respondents. 11. So far as headquarter of petitioner during his period of suspension is concerned, counsel for respondents could not justify the action of Government to direct the petitioner to mark his presence in the office of Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. Area, Bikaner, who is the officer of Junior rank to the petitioner, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to change the headquarter of petitioner during the period of his suspension, before the office of Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D., Secretariat, Jaipur instead of Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bikaner. 12. Thus, as a result, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner, to approach before the Tribunal to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order of suspension dated 30.11.2022. It is needless to observe that the Tribunal would consider the appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by findings/ observations made in the present order and would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Further taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, it is hereby directed that if petitioner submits the appeal within a period of 15 days, the Tribunal would make endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of 60 days from its filing, if possible, in accordance with law. 13. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to mark his presence, before the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D., Secretariat, Jaipur, instead of Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. Bikaner during the period of his suspension. 14. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.