[2026:RJ-JP:5429] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16809/2023 Surendra Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Inder Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot No.32, Tara Nagar-A, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Department Of Personnel, Through Principal Secretary, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan), India. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Rahul Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 05/02/2026 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 01.06.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, whereby on account of being arrested pursuant to FIR No.123/2022, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the sole purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to prevent to employee from tempering with any [2026:RJ-JP:5429] (2 of 4) [CW-16809/2023] evidence relating to a criminal case or departmental enquiry, as the case may be. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 01.06.2022 reflects that the petitioner was placed under suspension only on account of registration of FIR No.123/2022. Learned counsel submits that after concluding the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Criminal Court and the petitioner is facing trial. He submits that in the matters related to Prevention of Corruption Act, the evidence is mostly in the form of documents, which have already been submitted by the prosecution agency before the competent Criminal Court. Hence, there is no likelihood whatsoever of tempering with any evidence in that regard. 3. Learned counsel also submits that in addition to FIR No.123/2022, two more FIRs No.190/2022 and 131/2022 also lodged against the petitioner. So far as FIR No.190/2022 is concerned, the petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.9187/2022, wherein, after hearing both the parties, FIR has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 and the same has attained finality. 4. Learned counsel submits that as regards FIR No.131/2022, the same was also quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4366/2022, which was further challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16358/2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered in the SLP, [2026:RJ-JP:5429] (3 of 4) [CW-16809/2023] while re-opening the investigation, necessary directions were given. 5. Learned counsel submits that after decision in SLP, the investigation agency concluded investigation and since, no offence was found to be made out against the petitioner, the negative final report was filed before the competent court. 6. In view of above, learned counsel submits that now there is no justified reason for continuing suspension of the petitioner. However, despite reviewing the suspension order on as many as six occasions, on one or another pretext, the decision has been taken either against the petitioner, or to defer the meetings of Reviewing Committee. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is going to retire on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 31.03.2026, and therefore, continuing suspension of the petitioner would cause adverse effects over the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there were justified reasons for placing the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 01.06.2022, on account of circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. He submits that the petitioner was indulged in so many criminal cases, which prompted the respondent to continue the suspension order. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have time and again, reviewed the issue of continuation/revocation of suspension order, but only on account of pending investigation or pendency of litigation with regard to FIRs lodged against the petitioner, the issue of revocation of suspension order was deferred. [2026:RJ-JP:5429] (4 of 4) [CW-16809/2023] 8. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that so far as FIR No.123/2022 is concerned, challan has already been filed and FIR No.190/2022 has already been quashed by this Court. It is also not a matter of dispute that the investigation agency has filed negative FR in respect of FIR No.131/2022. 9. Under these circumstances, and more particularly, when the petitioner's superannuation is due with effect from 31.03.2026, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents to review the suspension order dated 01.06.2022 and to pass speaking order after taking into consideration all the above circumstances within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /119