[2025:RJ-JP:13057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3871/2025 Prahlad Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Goswami, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Dadiya Patti, Post Dharampura, Tehsil Aandhi, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, (Land Record), Collectorate, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivaswan Dikshit for Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 24/03/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2090/2025 titled as Intyaz Khan vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors., and judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. The relevant portion of the same is reiterated as below:- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from [2025:RJ-JP:13057] (2 of 2) [CW-3871/2025] contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepared his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set timelimits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” Further, learned counsel has submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner before the competent authority/respondents, be considered by the respondents/competent authority in light of the ratio enunciated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), in accordance with law. Heard. Issue notices. On directions of this Court, Mr. Vivaswan Dikshit on behalf of Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG accepts notices for respondents. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs respondents/competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of filing, in light of the dictum encapsulated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/221