[2025:RJ-JP:39392] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14669/2025 Sitaram S/o Shri Natthi Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Paota, Police Station Salempur, District Dausa, Assistant Sub- Inspector Then Posted At Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli, Currently Under Suspension At Police Line, Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur. 4. Superintendent Of Police, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Garhwal with Mr. Nishant Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 24/09/2025 1. Only grievance of the petitioner is that although, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.05.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Karauli (Raj.), yet till this date neither any charge-sheet under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 has been issued to the petitioner nor the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner have reached to the stage of framing of charge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also submitted one representation dated 20.08.2025 with a request to the respondents to review the suspension order and to pass appropriate orders. However, no heed has been paid by the respondents till this date. [2025:RJ-JP:39392] (2 of 2) [CW-14669/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein languishing the issue with regard to suspension period for a long time has been taken quite seriously by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directions were given to review the suspension order after three months from the date of issuance of such order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, as mentioned in the writ petition, where despite lapse of more than three months from the date of issuance of suspension order, till date charge-sheet has not been issued, the respondents are under a legal obligation, in the light of judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), to review the order of suspension. 6. Hence, the instant writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to pass appropriate speaking order after reviewing the suspension order dated 23.06.2025, in the light of facts stated in representation dated 20.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /46