Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kishana Ram Loul vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 September, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:38853]




        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      AT JODHPUR


                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12047/2025

Kishana Ram Loul S/o Shri Chatra Ram, aged about 45 years,
Resident of Loulo Ki Dhaniya, Dawa, Dawa, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Social Justice
         and Empowerment Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
2.       Director     and      Joint       Secretary      to       the   Government,
         Department of Social and Empowerment, Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
3.       The      Additional       Chief    Secretary,         Social    Justice   and
         Empowerment Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


 For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. JK Bhaiya
                                     Mr. Mayank Bhaiya
 For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Nitesh Mathur


                  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

01/09/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Articles 226 of the Constitution claiming following relief(s):-

"1- The order dated 24.05.2025 (Anex.5) passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2- The respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect with all consequential benefits and it may kindly be ordered/held that the services of the petitioner would remain un- affected.

[2025:RJ-JD:38853] (2 of 5) [CW-12047/2025]

3- Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. The facts are that the petitioner was placed under

suspension vide order dated 24.05.2025 (Annexure-5). The

petitioner is a Government employee in the Social Justice and

Empowerment Department, Rajasthan, who has been performing

his duties diligently. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated

that on 21.05.2025, the Director and Joint Secretary issued a

notice to district officers to verify scholarship applications for the

academic years 2022-23 and 2023-24, focusing on cases where

students changed institutions, classes, or courses, due to

suspected irregularities and wrongful payments. The petitioner

replied on 23.05.2025 explaining that certain applications from

Rawat College, Alwar, were processed using his login ID due to

system allocation, and irregularities in applications from other

districts were likely caused by technical errors or cyber fraud. He

denied any wrongdoing and requested a thorough investigation.

Despite this, without any enquiry or hearing, the respondent No.3

placed the petitioner suspension on 24.05.2025 and proposed

disciplinary proceedings in utter disregard to the principles of

natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an

admitted fact that no memorandum of charges or charge sheet

has been served on the petitioner till date, despite the fact that a

period of more than three months had elapsed since 24.05.2025

(Annex.5) i.e. his date of suspension. Learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors. :

[2025:RJ-JD:38853] (3 of 5) [CW-12047/2025]

2015 (7) SCC 291 and judgment passed by Division Bench of

this Court (At Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Special Appeal (W)

No.662/2022 : Jahangir Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. decided on 25.05.2022 and submits that the present case is

squarely covered by the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra),

wherein it was held that if no memorandum of charges/charge

sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee, within a period

of three months, the same would result into an automatic

revocation of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus

argued that the suspension order dated 24.05.2025 (Annex.5) be

held to have ceased to operate automatically and the petitioner be

reinstated forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute the

fact that the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been

issued till date, and more importantly, that the three-month period

from the date of suspension has already expired.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. This Court finds that it is an admitted fact that the

memorandum of charge-sheet has not been served on the

petitioner till date. Evidently, a period of three months from the

date of suspension i.e 24.05.2025 (Annex.5) has expired,

therefore, the petitioner cannot be continued to be placed under

suspension in the light of order passed in case of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary (supra).

7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in

Jahangir All Khan (supra) while relying upon the Hon'ble Apex

[2025:RJ-JD:38853] (4 of 5) [CW-12047/2025]

Court Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) held as

under:

"The law declared by the Supreme Court, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India on all Courts and the Tribunals, is that the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee. If on facts it is found that charge sheet has not been filed in criminal case or memorandum of charges, in the event the department decides to hold departmental inquiry, has not been issued within three months, the suspension order would come to an automatic end.

On facts of the present case, it is clear that initially the suspension order was issued on 31.03.2021, declaring deemed suspension w.e.f. 17.03.2021 on account of arrest and detention for more than 48 hours. The same was challenged before this Court and the appellant was allowed to make representation. The representation was rejected on 10.01.2022 1.e. almost after ten months of the deemed suspension. The order nowhere refers to issuance of any memorandum of charges in any departmental enquiry initiated by the department much less filing of chargesheet in the Criminal Court relating to the offences in connection with which deemed suspension had taken place.

On aforesaid factual aspects, which are not in dispute, the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not warrant continuance of the order of suspension.

This extra-ordinary situation was taken into consideration by the Tribunal to stay the order of suspension. All the Courts and Tribunals are bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, we find that the order could not be interfered with only on the ground that it was ex parte or passed 10 months after the suspension order was issued.