SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE respondent no. 2 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was placed under Suspension by the impugned order dated 9. 6. 99 (Annex. 3) passed by the State Govt. on a serious charge of taking bribe of Rs. 100/-per ration card and Rs. 500/-per person and he was trapped red handed for accepting bribe of Rs. 1000/-on 4. 1. 99. Against the said order of suspension, the respondent no. 2 -Sarpanch seems to have made representation/review petition u/s. 17 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and after hearing him and considering the record his suspension was revoked by setting aside the order of suspension dated 9. 6. 99 by the authority as no challan was filed in the Court against the suspension order.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is one of the complainants, aggrieved of the impugned order at Annex. 6 dated 20. 11. 1999 revoking the order of suspension of respondent no. 2, has filed this petition and challenged the impugned order. Learned counsel Shri Purohit submitted that the earlier order of suspension at Annex. 3 dated 9. 6. 99 was passed by the State Govt. whereas, the impugned order at Annex. 6 is passed by the competent authority, which is not permissible under the law. He submitted that only the State Govt. can pass such order and revoke the order of suspension of respondent no. 2. From the reading of impugned order at Annex. 6 as a whole it is clear that the earlier order of suspension passed by the Department of the State Govt. was cancelled and the suspension of respondent no. 2 was revoked by the competent authority of the State Govt. itself. Hence, this submission has no substance. Mr. Purohit then submitted that looking to the serious charges levelled against the respondent no. 2 and the fact that he was trapped red handed on 4. 1. 99, there was no reason to revoke the suspension order. From the suspension order, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 made representation/review petition under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1994 and after hearing him and considering the record, if the authority is satisfied that it is not a case of continuing him under suspension and if the impugned order of suspension is quashed then this Court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision in its writ jurisdiction and interfere with the same. Hence, the second submission of Mr. Purohit is also rejected. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed. . ;