[2025:RJ-JP:34887] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13063/2025 Bharat Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Ghasilal Gurjar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Dhamun Kalan, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur, Then Assistant Sub Inspector, In Charge Police Choki Kushtala, Police Station Rawanjana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, (Presently Under Suspension At Police Line, Karauli, District Karauli, (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range Bharatpur. 4. Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Gauttam For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/09/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2024 issued by Superintendent of Police Distt. Sawai Madhopur whereby on account of being indulged in a criminal case arising out of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, the petitioner was placed under suspension, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that despite lapse of more than 8 months, neither any charge-sheet under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as Rules of ‘1958’) has been [2025:RJ-JP:34887] (2 of 3) [CW-13063/2025] served upon the petitioner, nor have the respondents reviewed the suspension order dated 30.12.2024 either for the purpose of continuing the suspension or for revoking the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, 2025 (7) SCC 291 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 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 contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare 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 time-limits 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 interest 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. 3. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the record. 4. In the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the petitioner is directed to submit a representation for reviewing the suspension order before the respondent No.4 within a period of 7 days from today, who shall consider the representation and pass a speaking order within a period of 15 days thereafter. [2025:RJ-JP:34887] (3 of 3) [CW-13063/2025] 5. It is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on merits of the case. 6. The writ petition stand disposed of with the above direction. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/21