Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pukhraj Sou vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:43571]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18468/2025
Pukhraj Sou S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village And Post Soyla, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Pin 342037. (Hall School Lecturer (Now Under Suspension), At
Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Dhandhora, Tehsil-
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director (School Education), Jodhpur Division,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
03/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order
impugned dated 22.12.2023 (Annex.1), the petitioner was put
under suspension on count of he having been remained in judicial
custody for a period of more than 48 hours. He submits that as
per Circular dated 22.03.2023 (Annex.9), a Government servant
who had been suspended only on the count of having remained in
judicial custody, his suspension can be reconsidered in terms of
Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control
(Uploaded on 05/10/2025 at 04:12:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43571] (2 of 3) [CW-18468/2025]
and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and after the said consideration, the
order of suspension can even be revoked.
2. Counsel submits that although a representation had been
filed by the petitioner on 07.07.2025, the case of the petitioner
has not been considered.
3. Counsel further while relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India &
Ors.; 2015 (7) SCC 291 submits that even a challan in the
criminal proceeding has been filed and in view of the ratio laid
down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the case of the
petitioner deserves reconsideration.
4. Keeping into consideration the limited prayer as made, no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents and therefore, the
requirement of issuance of notice/service on respondents is
dispensed as no reply in present matter would be required.
5. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner filed on 07.07.2025 (Annexure-13) within a period of six
weeks from now in accordance with law and keeping in view the
observations made in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra) as well as in circular dated 22.03.2023.
6. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance.
7. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner before this
Court. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of
(Uploaded on 05/10/2025 at 04:12:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43571] (3 of 3) [CW-18468/2025]
the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the
averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
10-manila/-
(Uploaded on 05/10/2025 at 04:12:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
