[2025:RJ-JP:48398] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17254/2025 Uday Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of House No. 7, Lane No. 1, Behind Mojika Homes, Shivsingpura, Maharaja Surajmal Colony, Piprali Circle, Sikar-332001, Rajasthan, Presently Posted As Senior General Manager, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, (A Government Of India Enterprises), Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana- 122001, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director. 2. The Director (Personnel), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana-122001. 3. The Executive Director (Hrd), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana-122001. 4. The Chief General Manager, (Head Of Rajasthan Projects), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Reil House, Shipra Path, Shanti Nagar, Mansarovar, Jaipur-303020. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate with Dr. Prateek Sharma with Mr. Mahipal Bajiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/11/2025 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayers: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships [2025:RJ-JP:48398] (2 of 6) [CW-17254/2025] may very graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof: (i) the impugned suspension order dated 21.3.2025 as well as the order dated 21.07.2025 extending suspension for further 180 days may kindly be quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to revoke the suspension of petitioner forthwith with all consequential relief; (ii) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of humble petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon Rule-20 of Power Grid Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules submits that a specific rule has been prescribed for suspension and further review after 90 days. He further submits that the petitioner was initially suspended on 21.03.2025 w.e.f. 20.03.2025 but no review was undertaken by the Committee within 90 days as provided under Rule 20 of the CDA Rules. He further submits that the order dated 21.07.2025 is back dated order given effect from 18.06.2025 but in fact the issue of extension of suspension was considered beyond the prescribed time of 90 days. He further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated by CBI and only because of a criminal case prepared against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension. He further submitted that the extension order dated 21.07.2025 is contrary to Rule 20 of the Rules and guidelines for disciplinary procedure applicable in Power Grid. He further submitted that in a case like present one, where there is violation of statutory provision and also of principle of natural justice, the petitioner is entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. [2025:RJ-JP:48398] (3 of 6) [CW-17254/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent(s) and he specifically referred judgment in case of S.A. Khan Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1152 and submitted that there is no allegation of mala fide, of fraud or arbitrariness or malice in issuing suspension order, therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner was trapped by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was detained and further released on bail on 09.06.2025, therefore, the period will be counted from the date when he was released on bail and on 21.07.2025 his suspension was extended for another 180 days. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any right to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition as same is also deprecated by a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in case of Ramji Upadhyay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 5169/2005) decided on 17.07.2007. He further submitted that there is no violation as regard to procedure and rules are concerned and the respondents have acted in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Rules, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire material placed on record. 5. The petitioner has alleged violation of Rule 20 of Power Grid Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules applicable upon the petitioner and Rule 20 provides for initial suspension for a period of 90 days and thereafter review by authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension but before expiry of period of [2025:RJ-JP:48398] (4 of 6) [CW-17254/2025] 90 days from the date the order of suspension on the recommendation of the review committee constituted for the purpose. Herein this case, learned Senior Advocate has referred Rule 10 of CCA Rules which is not applicable in the instant case. The facts mentioned in reply clearly indicate that the petitioner was initially suspended on 21.03.2025 but a review committee was constituted on 03.07.2025 and decision of review committee came on 16.07.2025 thereafter the extension of suspension was decided on 21.07.2025 by issuing the order. 6. Considering the applicable rules and also the fact that normally the Courts expect the employee to exhaust alternative remedy available before approaching the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the High Court can intervene in writ jurisdiction in case of arbitrary, mala fide or prolonged suspension that almost amounts to punishment without disciplinary conclusion when alternative remedy is not meaningful or efficacious. 7. Even in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Haryana through its Secretary reported as AIR 2015 SC 2389, it was held that the philosophy and logic behind Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. should be extrapolated to cases of prolonged suspension. A time limit for filing charge-sheet as in Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. should be imposed in case of suspension also and the suspension should not continue beyond 3 months. It was observed that protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of [2025:RJ-JP:48398] (5 of 6) [CW-17254/2025] his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of common law jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that – “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.” 8. In case of S.A. Khan Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused for interference when a writ jurisdiction is filed directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by IPS Officer for which remedy of Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act is available. Similarly, in case of Ramji Upadhyay (supra), the case pertains to Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and availability of alternative remedy under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, was available. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dispose of writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to respondent no.1 through respondent no.2 and 4 but leaving the grounds of extension by order dated 21.07.2025 as open but with direction to respondent [2025:RJ-JP:48398] (6 of 6) [CW-17254/2025] no.1 to decide the representation within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation in the light of Power Grid CDA Rules and Guideline for Disciplinary Procedure as applicable for the petitioner. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to file a representation to the respondent no.1 through respondent nos. 2 and 4 by raising all grounds in light of Rules and respondent no.1 is directed to consider and decide the representation within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation but with reasoned and speaking order. Needless to say that the respondent(s) shall supply a copy on the decision of the petitioner either by speed post or by e-mail if petitioner has provided e-mail in his representation. If petitioner is still aggrieved, he will have a right to take appropriate action under the law available and Rules. 11. Writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /111