[2026:RJ-JP:138] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17167/2025 Ritesh Tanwar S/o. Lt. Ramchand Tanwar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 295, Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills, Through Its Manager Director, Jaipur 3. Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Malani For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 06/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 2. It is submitted that a committee comprising seven members was constituted vide Annexure-6 for the purpose of drainage and destruction of contraband liquor/beer/IMFL and that all seven members of the committee witnessed the process and jointly authored/undersigned Annexure-6 certifying the drainage and destruction of the seized articles. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been suspended on the allegation of certain [2026:RJ-JP:138] (2 of 3) [CW-17167/2025] irregularities and on the prima facie reasoning that despite the alleged destruction, the inventory was found to be in existence, thereby suggesting that no destruction had in fact taken place, which has been treated as a serious offence. 3. It is further submitted that the impugned suspension order reflects hostile and discriminatory treatment inasmuch as no similar action has been taken against the other members of the same committee, and at best, only show-cause notices have been issued to them. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Rajendra Yadav v. State of MP & Ors reported in (2013) 1 SCC (LS) 476, wherein it has been held that in respect of the same offence and under identical circumstances, differential treatment without maintaining parity is impermissible in law. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel, and perused the material available on record. 5. Doing the needful, it is noted that the matter pertains to liquor/contraband, wherein the role attributed to the petitioner relates to alleged adoption of unfair means while acting as the In- charge. The other members of the committee were either Chartered Accountants or supervisory officials, having distinct and different roles to perform. Nonetheless, they were also subjected to scrutiny and have been exonerated in the enquiry. 6. Considering the nature of allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner in a matter relating to liquor/contraband, this Court is of the opinion that the suspension order has been appropriately passed. The petitioner, however, is at [2026:RJ-JP:138] (3 of 3) [CW-17167/2025] liberty to avail appropriate remedies for redressal of the grievance arising out of the suspension order in accordance with law. It is also note-worthy that the plea of parity raised by the petitioner is misconceived in the facts of the present case, as the roles and factual matrix are materially different from those involved in the judgment relied upon. 7. In view of above, this court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications if any shall also stands disposed of. 8. It is clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate recourse as available under law. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/37