[2025:RJ-JP:45055] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12619/2024 Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Plot No. E-143, Saraswati Nagar, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bal Ram Vashishth For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 10/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner made limited prayer for disposal of the writ petition with liberty to file a representation with the respondent-authorities for considering the request for revocation of prolong suspension, which was made vide order dated 20.10.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12303/2024 titled as (Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. State & Ors.) which reads as under: “1. The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner. 2. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., reported in 2015(7) SCC 291 in para No.21 has held as under:- “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- [2025:RJ-JP:45055] (2 of 2) [CW-12619/2024] 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 recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise 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 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.” 3. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 60 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ petition if need so arises. 4. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. The stay application and all pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. The limited submission made by counsel for the petitioner, deserves acceptance. The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and in terms of the judgment passed in case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (Supra). The directions contained in the said judgment shall operate in favour of the petitioner mutatis mutandis. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J PAYAL DHAWAN /218