[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virendra Kumar Nag vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17341) on 15 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:17341]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8157/2026
Virendra Kumar Nag S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Nag, Aged About 43
Years, Resident Of Pura Mohalla, Shiv Gali, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel (K-3), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jalore, Rajasthan.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashraj Singh Kumawat
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
15/04/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature thereof and
thereby quash and set aside the
impugned suspension order dated
14.08.2025 (Annexure-03);
ii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature thereof and
thereby direct the respondent
authorities to reinstate the petitioner in
service with full back wages along with
other consequential benefits;
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:04:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17341] (2 of 3) [CW-8157/2026]
iii) Any other appropriate order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in favour of the
petitioner may kindly be passed with
cost.
2. It is stated that only on account of the fact that petitioner
was falsely implicated in a criminal case under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner was placed under
suspension vide order dated 14.08.2025 exercising un-necessary
of power under Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services, (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. (hereinafter to be referred as
'the Rules of 1958')
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
although the suspension order was issued on 14.08.2025 yet till
this date no charge-sheet under the Rules of 1958 has been
issued and served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India
(2015) 7 SCC 29.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
5. In case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has given broad guidelines that, in case, an
employee has been placed under suspension then the suspension
order should be followed by a charge-sheet under the statutory
rules and, in case, charge-sheet is not issued within a period of
three months from the date of suspension, then the employer is
under an obligation to review the suspension order. As per learned
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:04:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17341] (3 of 3) [CW-8157/2026]
counsel for the petitioner, till date, no such review has been
conducted by the respondents.
6. In view of the above, this Court deems it just and proper to
to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to
submit a representation before the competent authority which
shall consider and decide the representation in light of the
judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) for reviewing the
suspension order. The speaking order shall be passed within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of representation
either for revoking suspension order or for extending the same by
assigning cogent reasons in accordance with law.
7. All other pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
28-Taruna/-
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:04:08 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
