Mahendra Kumar Sen vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1067 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Kumar Sen vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 January, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:3980-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1848/2025

Mahendra Kumar Sen S/o Shri Roopchand Sain, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Opposite Tichyatol Colony Street, Pathik Nagar - 2,
Village And Post Bijoliya Kalan, Bhilwara.
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State    Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal      Secretary,
         Department        Of     Mines,       Government            Of     Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Mines And Geology, Directorate Of Mines
         And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Addl.   Director       (Mines),      Udaipur        Zone,    Hiran     Magri,
         Udaipur.
4.       Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Department
         Of Geology, Bhilwara.
5.       The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology,
         Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Suniel Purohit.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

22/01/2026

1. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the

judgment rendered by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Hon'ble

Court at Jaipur Bench in the matter of Jahangir Ali Khan v.

State & Anr. : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.662/2022,

decided on 25.05.2022.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 02:14:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3980-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1848/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that until the

charge-sheet is served and a period of three months has elapsed

without any decision being taken to institute an inquiry, the order

of suspension would not be sustained.

3. At the very threshold, learned Additional Advocate General

submits that the charge-sheet stands duly prepared and ready for

service. A copy of the said charge-sheet has been produced before

this Court and the same has been taken on record with due

consideration.

4. In view of the fact that the charge-sheet has already been

prepared and ready for issuance, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the present appeal does not warrant any interference

at this stage.

5. The instant appeal stands dismissed accordingly. All pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

25-Zeeshan

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 02:14:29 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)