[2025:RJ-JP:17669] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11246/2024 Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, aged about 41 years, Suspended Chief Executive (Assistant Manager), Haripura Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Haripura, Panchayat Samiti Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur-R/o-Kalakh, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Jaipur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., F-1, Nursery Circle, infront of Vaishali Tower Second, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan through Managing Director. 3. Haripura Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Haripra, Panchayat Samiti-Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, Raj. through Chairman. 4. Shri Pemaram Sepat S/o Late Shri Ramuram Jat, aged about 71 Years, R/o Sepaton Ki Dhani, Kalakh, Panchayat Samiti Jobner, District Jaipur Raj. and Chairman Haripura Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Haripura, Panchayat Samiti-Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.M. Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, Advocate Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, Advocte. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/04/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by suspension order dated 10.06.2024 and issuance of charge-sheet dated 10.06.2024, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While pressing his submission against the [2025:RJ-JP:17669] (2 of 3) [CW-11246/2024] suspension order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at this stage he is not pressing his prayer against the charge- sheet and he would contest the charge-sheet as per the Disciplinary Rules by way of filing reply before the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, he may be allowed to withdraw his prayer with regard to challenge to charge-sheet. 2. So far as, issuance of suspension order is concerned, contention of the petitioner is that although the order was issued way-back on 10.06.2024 and more than ten months have expired till this date, yet the respondents have not re-considered the issue with regard to suspension. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, where Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that currency of suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if then, this period memorandum of charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent. However, if the charge-sheet is served then the employer should pass a reasoned order to extend the suspension. 3. While citing the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in his case suspension order was served along with charge-sheet, yet even, after lapse of substantial period of ten months, neither any specific order for extension of suspension has been issued by the respondents nor the respondents have re-considered for revocation of suspension. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the light of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), I deem it just and proper to dispose of [2025:RJ-JP:17669] (3 of 3) [CW-11246/2024] the writ petition a direction to the respondents to pass speaking order after considering the case of revocation of suspension of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that he has also not been paid suspension allowance during the period. The petitioner may also make a representation in this regard and same may also be decided within a period of two months. 6. As prayed, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against charge-sheet stands dismissed as withdrawn. 7. In view of above discussions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/189