[2025:RJ-JP:31872] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11773/2025 Jyoti Sharma W/o Shri Shivraj Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 62, Shanti Nagar, D.c.m., Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Secondary Education, Government Of Ra- jasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Shiksha Sankool, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the suspension order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a lapse of more than eight years, the case for revocation of suspension of the petitioner has not been considered. He further submits that no charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. He further submits that he would be satisfied if liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to be considered in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar [2025:RJ-JP:31872] (2 of 3) [CW-11773/2025] Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors . reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. The relevant para No.21 is reproduced as under: "21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend be- yond 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 depart- ment 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 pro- hibit him from contacting any person, or han- dling 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 prose- cution. We recognize that the previous Con- stitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set timelimits to their duration. How- ever, 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 direc- tion of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmen- tal proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us." 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar. 4. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to [2025:RJ-JP:31872] (3 of 3) [CW-11773/2025] address a fresh representation before the respondent No.3- Deputy Director, Integrated Child Development Service, for redressal of the grievance raised by 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. 5. The writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of accordingly. 6. Other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/6