ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Basically, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 on various grounds. Since the respondents have filed reply, therefore, with consent of counsel for the parties, we are disposing of the writ petition at this stage. 2. The writ petitions has prayed as under: 1. Request to pass an order or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 by using powers under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and the said suspension order passed arbitrarily and without application of mind after two years of sending the preliminary enquiry report of the alleged incident as alleged by the Respondent No. 3 on the basis of fake, forged and fabricated used by the documents prepared and Respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 to harm/destroy the government service of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 violates principle of natural justice. 2. Request to pass an order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to reinstate/restore the Petitioner on the same place of posting as an Incharge at First Class Veterinary Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Request to pass an order or direction to stay the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 and 2 kindly be restrained from taking any other coercive action against the Petitioner till the disposal of the present petition. 4. Request to pass an order or direction to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to conduct the joint enquiry as per Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 for misconduct and conspiracy to for harm/destroy the government service of the Petitioner by preparing and using fake, forged and fabricated documents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the writ petition, submitted that Respondent No. 3 is having malice with petitioner and due to this animosity, Respondent No. 3 has proposed departmental action against the petitioner. He further submitted that Respondent No. 4 has also played main role in filing a false complaint against the petitioner at the instigation of Respondent No. 3. He also submitted that Respondent Nos. He further submitted that Respondent No. 4 has also played main role in filing a false complaint against the petitioner at the instigation of Respondent No. 3. He also submitted that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are responsible for creation of false and fabricated documents and filing baseless complaints against the petitioner. He also referred to certain documents placed on record and submitted that there is direct tussle between Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 has created false and fabricated evidence to nail present petitioner. He also submitted that a person cannot be a judge in his own case, but Respondent No. 3 has submitted a fact-finding report against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was neither served with notice nor an opportunity was given to show cause. He also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for protection as there is violation of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He further submitted that false and fabricated documents were prepared with the connivance and help of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 so that false charges can be levelled against petitioner. He submitted that after suspension, a charge- sheet was issued only after two months and not soon after the suspension. He submitted that a suspension order cannot survive unless same is supported with documents. He also referred to several documents, in particular annexures and submitted that petitioner is entitled to quashing the suspension order on factual as well as legal grounds. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and she submitted that in contemplation of enquiry, the suspension order was issued against the petitioner and the same is within power and authority of the department. She further submitted that the petitioner may submit a representation to the Respondent Authority and the Respondent Authority, after considering the public interest, may revoke suspension but the suspension order cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 has submitted that there is no vengeance or animosity between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. He further submitted that the petitioner has levelled false charges against Respondent No. 3. He submitted that Respondent No. 3 is controlling officer of 13–14 hospitals and the petitioner is one of the officer under him. He further submitted that the petitioner has levelled false charges against Respondent No. 3. He submitted that Respondent No. 3 is controlling officer of 13–14 hospitals and the petitioner is one of the officer under him. He further relied upon the reply filed by him and submitted that Respondent No. 3 is not having any personal grudge against the petitioner, and false allegations were made against him. He also submitted that the present petitioner was served with notice and action was initiated only after notice in accordance with rules. He further submitted that the petitioner is having alternative remedy of approaching the Service Tribunal (RAT) and also filing departmental appeal but he cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 supported the case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the petitioner is working as a Senior Veterinary Officer/Doctor and since 20.08.2019 he is working as In- charge of Veterinary Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, from 21.08.2019 to till date of his suspension on 29.08.2025. The suspension order (Annexure-1) indicates that the petitioner remained absent from 17.07.2023 to 14.04.2024 (172 days) without sanction of leave and the petitioner has put his signature in attendance register from 18.08.2023 to 10.09.2023. Considering wilful absence and further falsification of attendance, a misconduct, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, in contemplating of inquiry. 9. As regards the rule, the rule empowers suspension in anticipation of inquiry. Normally, the grounds of suspension are: (i) When disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the employee; (ii) If the employee is involved in a criminal case under investigation or trial; (iii) If any government employee is detained in police/judicial custody exceeding 48 hours; (iv) Allegations of serious misconduct including moral turpitude, corruption, negligence causing loss to the Government, elopement from duty, failure to comply with the orders of seniors. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was suspended on 29.08.2025, and the material on record clearly indicate that there is some difference between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. Similarly, the petitioner has made allegations upon Respondent Nos. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was suspended on 29.08.2025, and the material on record clearly indicate that there is some difference between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. Similarly, the petitioner has made allegations upon Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, for involving with respondent No.3. The allegations of personal grudge are denied by the counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Respondent No. 3 in particular has filed a reply supported with affidavit indicating that he is controlling officer for 14-15 such centres and the petitioner was suspended as he willfully remained absent from duty. The allegations also include putting signature on attendance for the period for which petitioner was not present, on duty. 11. The truthfulness and correctness of the allegations can only be decided during inquiry and not otherwise. Willful absence from duty is a ground to initiate a process of suspension in contemplation of inquiry. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the fact that after two months of the impugned suspension order, a charge-sheet has been served. Normally, a charge-sheet has to be served without any delay but assuming delay of more than two months, even then it is not a good ground to consider the case of the present petitioner. 12. Normally, the procedure adopted by Government Departments clearly indicate that if an employee is placed under suspension then as per public policy, after a periodic interval, the case of suspension must be reviewed so as to consider whether continuation of suspension is warranted or not. 13. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary and Another reported as AIR 2015 SC 2389 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the suspension order cannot extend beyond three months unless Government serves charge-sheet or memorandum of charge within the said period. If the charges are filed in time, extension of suspension must be supported by a reasoned order to justify the reason to continue the suspension. 14. The importance of balancing the Government interest in conducting a fair and efficient inquiry with fundamental rights and dignity of a suspended employee has been emphasized. The suspension order is not a punishment; rather it is part of service. The suspension order is only means to safeguard the disciplinary process. 14. The importance of balancing the Government interest in conducting a fair and efficient inquiry with fundamental rights and dignity of a suspended employee has been emphasized. The suspension order is not a punishment; rather it is part of service. The suspension order is only means to safeguard the disciplinary process. Existence of an alternative remedy by way of departmental appeal or departmental remedy is a bar to direct institution of writ petition challenging suspension order unless it is shown that the alternative remedy is illusory or ineffective. The facts of the case clearly indicate that after the suspension order, a charge memo has been served to the petitioner and still the inquiry is at preliminary stage. The petitioner may participate in the enquiry. The grounds of bias as raised by learned counsel for petitioner are not sufficient to interfere at this stage. 15. Similarly, the action initiated by Respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as personal grudge but is an action by departmental authority. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show grounds for interference. However, the petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation in light of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (Supra) , as no case is made out for interference by this Court. 16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, along with all pending application(s), if any. 17. The petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation to the respondents No.1 and 2 in light of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (Supra) within a period of 30 days, and the respondent shall consider the representation in light of the judgment referred hereinabove and decide the ground raised by the petitioner with a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 18. No order as to costs.