Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Praveen Maheshwari vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:24710]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9971/2025
Praveen Maheshwari S/o Late Sh. Pratapchand Karwa, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of Near Old I.t.o Ray Colony, Barmer
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, To The
Government Department Of Transport And Road Safety,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary And Commissioner, Department Of Transport
And Road Safety, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Joint Transport Commissioner, (Administration)
Department Of Transport And Road Safety, Jaipur
4. District Transport Officer, Salumber, District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur
Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
21/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 03.04.2025 (Annex.5) whereby the petitioner has been
placed under suspension.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned dated
03.04.2025 nowhere reflects any of the grounds as provided
under Rule 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the
Rules of 1958') in terms of which, an employee can be placed
under suspension.
[2025:RJ-JD:24710] (2 of 3) [CW-9971/2025]
3. Counsel while relying upon the judgment passed by this
Court in Smt. Mukta Verma (Soni) Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8843/2025 (decided on
01.05.2025) submitted that even issuance of the subsequent
charge-sheet on 16.05.2025 would not make the order dated
03.04.2025 valid as on the date when it was issued, it was
contrary to Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958.
4. Per contra learned AAG appearing for the respondent-
Department while relying upon the judgment in Sharwan Kumar
Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2010 3 RLW (Raj.) 1942 submitted
that the suspension order is not required to contain one or all of
the reasons for suspending an employee. He submits that as
enquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 has now been
initiated against the petitioner, the order of suspension does not
require any interference.
5. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the charge-sheet as annexed along with the
reply reflects that the charges as framed against the petitioner
qua which an enquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 has
been initiated. The said charges do reflect that they are grave and
the employee might be required to be kept under suspension. But
then, order of suspending an employee has to be in conformity
with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of
1958 specifically provides for the conditions in which an employee
can be placed under suspension. None of the said conditions has
been reflected in order dated 03.04.2025 which can justify the
order of suspension nor does the order record the satisfaction of
[2025:RJ-JD:24710] (3 of 3) [CW-9971/2025]
the issuing authority as to why the incumbent was required to be
placed under suspension.
7. In view of the aforesaid, order impugned dated 03.04.2025
not being in conformity with Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958,
deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ
petition stands disposed of.
8. However, the respondent-authorities shall be at liberty to
proceed with the enquiry proceedings and also to pass fresh order
of suspension, if the law so permits.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
300-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
