[2026:RJ-JP:24856] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8264/2026 URN: CW / 18221U / 2026 Ashok Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Jangid, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 11, Ashok Vatika, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Sanganer Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Office At Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director. 2. The Secretary (Admn.), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Office At Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura Mr. Jeet Ram Choudhary Ms. Madhavi Vyas Ms. Shivangi Singh Patel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Srivastav HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 03/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner had been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. 2. An application under Order I Rule 10, CPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking impleadment of Shri B.S. Meena, an Officer of the respondent-Department. It has been contended that the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the said [2026:RJ-JP:24856] (2 of 4) [CW-8264/2026] Officer and, therefore, he ought to be impleaded as a party respondent in the present writ petition. 3. The second application has been filed under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC seeking permission to place on record the transcript of a voice recording. 4. So far as the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that in a writ petition challenging an order of suspension, no departmental officer is required to be impleaded in his personal capacity. The impleadment of such an officer would have no bearing on the adjudication of the issue as to whether the impugned order of suspension had been validly passed or not. Furthermore, any allegation of harassment by one officer against another cannot be made the subject matter of the present writ proceedings. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 5. With regard to the application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC, no reasons have been assigned as to why the transcript of the alleged voice recording is required to be taken on record. The application merely states that the document may be accepted on record without explaining its relevance or necessity for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present petition. In the absence of any such averment, the document cannot be permitted to be taken on record. The application is, accordingly, rejected. 6. Coming on to the merit of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed malafidely at the instance of Shri B.S. Meena, as the petitioner had earlier proposed a charge-sheet against one Dhara [2026:RJ-JP:24856] (3 of 4) [CW-8264/2026] Singh, who is stated to be a relative of Shri B.S. Meena. It is further submitted that Shri B.S. Meena being a member of the Committee constituted to conduct the enquiry, while acting with bias, submitted an adverse report against the petitioner. 7. Per contra learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's suspension has not been ordered solely on basis of the report submitted by the first Enquiry Committee. Rather there are three enquiry reports on record and vide all of the said reports, petitioner was found to be guilty. It is after the said three reports that the competent authority, after considering the material available before him, placed the petitioner under suspension, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The order, it is submitted, is well within the jurisdiction and competence of the Disciplinary Authority. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is evident from the record that when the first enquiry report was submitted by the Committee, of which Shri B.S. Meena was a member, the petitioner submitted a representation before the higher authorities alleging bias against Shri B.S. Meena and requested for a fresh enquiry to be conducted by an independent and impartial committee. It is not disputed that, acting upon the said representation, the competent authority constituted a new Enquiry Committee comprising of three different members. The said Committee submitted its report on 27.05.2026, wherein too, the petitioner was held guilty of the allegations levelled against him. [2026:RJ-JP:24856] (4 of 4) [CW-8264/2026] 10. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the enquiry reports, as any such observation might prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the pending disciplinary proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, is in consonance with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and hence, in accordance with law. No ground for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 11. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 113/RASHMI