[2026:RJ-JP:9029] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2900/2026 Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife Of Shri Vishvendra Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Arruwa, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Secretariat, Rajasthan. 3. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The Government (II), Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur 5. District Collector, Alwar 6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan. 7. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kathumar, District Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Udawat with Mr. Anirudha Sharma for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 26/02/2026 1. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been reinstated by the respondents vide office order dated 20.08.2025 which stood reiterated vide order dated 25.08.2025 and further clarified vide order dated 22.01.2026, there is no reason for the respondents to [2026:RJ-JP:9029] (2 of 4) [CW-2900/2026] not to permit the petitioner to work and to not to activate her official I.D. of Pradhan for reasons best known to them. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to the knowledge of the Court about the judgment dated 20.08.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6663/2025 and 3425/2025, both titled as Sangam Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein the challenge made by the petitioner to the order of suspension dated 25.04.2025 has been rejected and thus, he submits that the petitioner under no circumstances can be considered as having reinstated. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner was suspended by the respondents, vide order dated 25.04.2025, challenge to which was raised by the petitioner by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6663/2025. An interim order dated 09.05.2025 was passed by this Court in pursuance to which office order dated 20.08.2025 was passed by the respondents. The order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the respondents read as under : “:- आदेशः - शीमती संगम चौधरी, पधान, पंचायत समममत कठू मर, मजला अलवर को इनके मपछले सरपंच कायरकाल मे सरपंच पद पर रहते हए गाम पंचायत अरर वा, पंचायत समममत कठू मर, मजला अलवर मे मनयम मवरद पटे जारी करने संबंधी पकरण मे पाप जांच ररपोरर मे दोषी पाये जाने पर मवभागीय आदेश कमांक 14865211 मदनांक 25.04.2025 के दारा मनलंमबत मकया गया था। मवभागीय आदेश मदनांक 25.04.2025 को माननीय उच नायालय जयपुर मे दायर एस.बी. मसमवल ररर यामचका संखा 6663/2025 मे पाररत आदेश मदनांक 09.05.2025 दारा समगत मकया गया है। [2026:RJ-JP:9029] (3 of 4) [CW-2900/2026] अतः राज सरकार माननीय उच नायालय जयपुर दारा पाररत आदेश मदनांक 09.05.2025 की पालना मे शीमती संगम चौधरी, मनलंमबत पधान, पंचायत समममत कठू मर, मजला अलवर के मवरद जारी मनलंबन आदेश कमांक 14865211 मदनांक 25.04.2025 को आगामी आदेशों तक सगगत मकये जाने के आदेश पदान करती है। यह आदेश सकम सर से अनुमागदत है।" 5. Bare perusal of the office order dated 20.08.2025 reveals that the reinstatement of the petitioner and deferment of the suspension of the order dated 25.04.2025 was made by the respondents only in obedience and adherence to the interim order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court. 6. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 20.08.2025, the said writ petition has been dismissed by this Court and as informed by the counsel for both the parties, no challenge to the said order has been made. The operative portions of the judgment dated 20.08.2025 : “2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6663/2025 has been submitted against the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the respondents in exercise of the powers contained under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”). 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3425/2025 has been submitted by the petitioner against the charge-sheet issued to her under Rule22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). 19. This Court is not dealing with the arguments advanced by the rival sides, in detail, as expression of any view by this Court may prejudice the ongoing enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. All the judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable, considering the specific facts of the case [2026:RJ-JP:9029] (4 of 4) [CW-2900/2026] and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner. 20. In view of the discussions made herein above, this Court finds no merit and substance in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be and are hereby rejected. 22. The respondents are expected to complete the onging enquiry proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible but not beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as an elected public representative is under suspension and she cannot be allowed to remain under suspension for an indefinite period. 23. It is made clear that respondents/authority shall conclude the ongoing enquiry, on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein by this Court.” 7. Once, this Hon’ble Court has arrived at a definite finding that as consequently dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension order, under no circumstances, the office order dated 20.08.2025 which was passed solely in pursuance to the interim order passed by the Court on 09.05.2025 can sustain and thus, the necessary consequence of the rejection of the writ petition by this Court is that the office order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the respondents does not survive any more. 8. Accordingly, the prayers as sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 23.01.2026 fails to the core and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J VINAY /42