[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Praveen Maheshwari vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:19845]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4507/2026
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. 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. Mayank Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati,
AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
27/04/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be
allowed and -
(i) By and appropriate writ order or direction,
the order impugned dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure-10)
passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be
declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, and
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:18:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19845] (2 of 4) [CW-4507/2026]
the petitioner may kindly be reinstated in service
forthwith; and
(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the
charge sheet dated 16.05.2025 may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
(iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iv) Any other appropriate order or relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case may kindly also be
passed in favour of humble petitioner.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition qua
prayer No. 2, i.e., the challenge to the charge-sheet at this stage.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2025 issued
by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport and Road Safety
Department, whereby, in exercise of powers under Rule 13(1) of
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1958, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
root cause of suspending the petitioner is FIR No. 0096/2025
registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Despite the fact
that the petitioner has not been named, the impugned suspension
order dated 28.05.2025 has been issued on the basis of vague
and unsubstantiated allegations in the FIR. It is further submitted
that the proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid FIR have been
stayed vide order dated 30.01.2026 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No. 425/2026, qua the petitioners in that case. It is also
submitted that although a disciplinary enquiry has been initiated
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:18:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19845] (3 of 4) [CW-4507/2026]
against the petitioner by serving a memorandum of charge-sheet
along with statements of allegations, no substantial proceedings
have taken place pursuant thereto to date. It is contended that
the petitioner has been under suspension since 28.05.2025 and,
under the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, cannot be
compelled to remain under suspension for an indefinite period. It
is further submitted that the respondents have not reviewed the
suspension order till date, nor has any decision been
communicated to the petitioner either to revoke the suspension or
to extend the same for any cogent reason.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ
petition and submitted that the petitioner has indulged in serious
misconduct, as reflected from the statements of allegations
appended to the memorandum of charge-sheet dated 16.05.2025,
and therefore it was necessary to place the petitioner under
suspension. It is further submitted that the purpose of placing the
petitioner under suspension is to keep him away from his place of
posting so as to rule out any possibility of tampering with
evidence or influencing witnesses.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 28.05.2025, i.e., almost eleven months ago.
During this period, the respondents/disciplinary authority must
have collected the entire evidence against the petitioner, which is
also reflected from the memorandum of charge-sheet served upon
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:18:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19845] (4 of 4) [CW-4507/2026]
him. Therefore, the likelihood of tampering with evidence now
appears to be minimal. However, if the respondents still have any
apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing witnesses, the
competent authority, while reviewing the suspension order, may
consider posting the petitioner at a place far away from the place
of occurrence.
7. In view of the above, this Court deems it just and proper to
dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to
submit a representation before the competent authority seeking
revocation of the suspension order. The said representation shall
be considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance
with law, and a decision, either to revoke the suspension or to
extend the same, shall be communicated to the petitioner along
with cogent reasons.
8. The necessary orders shall be passed within a period of sixty
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
65-Taruna/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:18:20 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
