ORDER : 1. Heard on the interim stay application. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension order dated 17.10.2025. 3. The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was serving as Chief Medical & Health Officer at Udaipur, the respondents, on the basis of frivolous complaints, passed a transfer order dated 07.01.2025. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order before the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.01.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Special Appeal against the said order before the Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 09.04.2025, the Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently set aside the transfer order dated 07.01.2025. When full compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench was not made, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition. In the Contempt Petition, the Division Bench, vide order dated 02.07.2025, issued a show-cause notice to the contemnors for non-compliance with the order dated 09.04.2025. 4. Subsequent to the transfer order, the respondents resorted to various frivolous grounds to initiate action against the petitioner with an ulterior motive, in retaliation for challenging the transfer order and for filing the Contempt Petition for its non-compliance. The present impugned suspension order is a result of such ulterior motive and is not based on any material of a serious nature, which requires disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Without any concrete material warranting the suspension, the impugned order of suspension has been passed, which requires to be set aside. 5. The case of the respondents is that there are multiple charge-sheets against the petitioner, and proposals for initiation of disciplinary proceedings were also submitted by various authorities to the Appointing Authority. These proposals were based on several grounds, including allegations of financial mismanagement and irregularities in tender processing. On the basis of these investigations, the impugned order of suspension was issued in contemplation of departmental enquiries. The suspension order is not punitive in nature; it is merely an interim measure pending such enquiries, which order cannot be interfered. 6. The respondents also claimed that the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of alternative remedy available before the Administrative Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the interim stay application. 7. The suspension order is not punitive in nature; it is merely an interim measure pending such enquiries, which order cannot be interfered. 6. The respondents also claimed that the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of alternative remedy available before the Administrative Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the interim stay application. 7. The rejoinder of the petitioner also shows that there are certain charge-sheets against the petitioner for minor deviations, such as non-compliance with certain audit objections, and one charge-sheet relating to an altercation that occurred when the petitioner, during an inspection of an institution under his control, had a dispute with the person in charge of that institution. These constitute the only two cases in which charge-sheets have been issued to the petitioner. In all other matters, no charge-sheet has been issued; instead, proposals for disciplinary action were made by lower authorities who were acting at the behest of individuals holding animosity against the petitioner. Furthermore, the allegations in question were referred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau for enquiry, which itself indicates that no concrete material was available before the Authorities to frame charges against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. These allegations are direct consequence of the petitioner initiating court proceedings challenging the transfer order and subsequently filing contempt proceedings for non-compliance with the reinstatement order passed by the Division Bench. All the reports submitted by the subordinate officers, which were relied upon in the reply were motivated, and there was no justification for the Appointing Authority to place the petitioner under suspension. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A prima facie examination of the background facts clearly demonstrates that the two alleged charge-sheets pertained to only minor deviations, namely non-compliance with an audit objection and certain altercations between the petitioner and another Medical Officer working under him. These charge-sheets were issued prior to the present suspension order and were themselves issued after the petitioner’s transfer order. The petitioner had initially challenged the transfer order, which had been made on the basis of certain complaints received against him. This transfer order was subsequently set aside by a Division Bench of this Court. These charge-sheets were issued prior to the present suspension order and were themselves issued after the petitioner’s transfer order. The petitioner had initially challenged the transfer order, which had been made on the basis of certain complaints received against him. This transfer order was subsequently set aside by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner also filed contempt proceedings against the Principal Secretary, Medical & Health; the Principal Secretary, Rural & Panchayati Raj; the Joint Secretary, Department of Medical & Health; the Director; and the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services. All subsequent alleged allegations are relating to excess payment for engaging Turnkey MMV vehicles beyond the sanctioned number, failure to impose penalty for violation of contractual terms by the contractor, non-verification of GST challans submitted by the contractor while claiming payment, procurement of glucometer strips without obtaining comparative quotations, tender irregularities arising from improper specifications by the Procurement Committee (chaired by the petitioner), cashbook maintenance irregularities, certain financial issues concerning NHM funds, e-tender irregularities and they were referred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The alleged irregularities in diesel purchases, originated from the Additional Director, Medical & Health, and were forwarded to the Joint Director. These were all initiated after the proceedings in which the petitioner had challenged the transfer order before the Division Bench. During those proceedings, certain misleading statements were discovered, resulting in the concerned officer being directed to tender an apology to the Division Bench. Furthermore, the present suspension order does not disclose the nature of irregularities for which they contemplated disciplinary proceedings. It merely states that the suspension is issued in contemplation of an enquiry, without specifying the allegations to be enquired. 10. The settled principles governing suspension are that when the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee pending an inquiry, or contemplated inquiry, or an investigation into grave charges of misconduct, defalcation of funds, or serious acts of omission and commission, such suspension must be ordered only after due consideration. The authority must examine the gravity of the alleged misconduct, the nature of the evidence available, and must apply its mind before deciding to place the employee under suspension. These factors are essential for determining whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension during the pendency of such proceedings. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of administrative routine, nor can it be invoked automatically. These factors are essential for determining whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension during the pendency of such proceedings. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of administrative routine, nor can it be invoked automatically. The authority must carefully assess the seriousness of the allegations before taking the drastic step of suspending an employee. 11. The background facts of the present case reflect that all the inquiry proceedings and charge-sheets were a consequence of the petitioner’s challenge to the transfer order. Every minor violation was treated as a ground for initiating charges. Instances such as non-compliance with certain audit objections, non-furnishing of information under the Right to Information Act, and minor altercations arising out of exchanges between the petitioner (as the Inspecting Officer) and his subordinate officer were also made the basis for charges. The more serious allegations emerged only after the proceedings before the Division Bench, during which the respondent authorities were directed to tender apologies. The suspension order also appears to have been influenced by the contempt proceedings. In the background of the above facts and circumstances, since the contents of the suspension order do not indicate the charges that are required to be enquired into or investigated, the authorities could not have assessed whether it was expedient to suspend the petitioner. These details were not part of the suspension order. 12. Dealing with the contention of non-maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy, the Rajasthan Administrative Appellate Tribunal Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal in respect of matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings. The suspension is part of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable. 13. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the suspension was not result of proper application of mind taking into account of the gravity of the charges. However, the prima facie material disclosed all these charges and proposed disciplinary proceedings are result of certain communication from the lower rank of officers suggesting to the higher authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In the above set of facts, this Court is inclined to interfere in the suspension order. Therefore, there shall be stay on the suspension order dated 17.10.2025. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to function on the post where he was suspended pending writ petition. 14. In the above set of facts, this Court is inclined to interfere in the suspension order. Therefore, there shall be stay on the suspension order dated 17.10.2025. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to function on the post where he was suspended pending writ petition. 14. Admit. 15. Notices need not be issued as the parties are being represented through their respective parties. 16. An application (Inward No.01/2025) has been filed by the co-employee for impleadment as a party respondent in the writ petition. There are certain private dispute between the present petitioner and the applicant, and in this regard both of them faces charges. The issue in the present writ petition is disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain alleged allegations, which is nothing to do with the present applicant and he cannot be permitted to be get impleaded as part in the present writ petition. The application for impleadment is according dismissed. 17. Let the matter be posted for hearing.