[2025:RJ-JP:38171] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14206/2025 Jai Ram Arya S/o Shri Rawat Ram Arya, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu, (Raj.) Employee ID- RJSK199733006945. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the suspension order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a lapse of more than one year, the case for revocation of suspension of the petitioner has not been considered. He further submits that no charge-sheet has yet been filed by the respondents against the petitioner. 3. Though various prayers have been made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if; he is [2025:RJ-JP:38171] (2 of 3) [CW-14206/2025] permitted to file a representation before respondent No.2 - Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, encapsulating the grievances raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to decide the same in a time-bound manner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors . 1 . The relevant Para No.21 is reproduced as under: "21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this pe- riod 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 investiga- tion against him. The Government may also prohibit him from 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, departmen- tal proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us." 1. 2015 (7) SCC 291 [2025:RJ-JP:38171] (3 of 3) [CW-14206/2025] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.2 - Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur within a period of four (04) weeks from today. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of filing of such representation, in light of the dictum encapsulated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. (supra) , strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order. 6. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. The same shall not be construed as an order to decide the representation in any particular manner. 7. Furthermore, it is needless to say that after adjudication of the representation, if any cause of action still survives, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies available under the law. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 9. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/8