CWP-9080/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9080/2010 Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date Of Order :: 19/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ashok Kumar Bansal, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order whereby he was placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules vide order dt.20.4.09 passed by Director, Treasury & Accounts, which is indeed appeable order under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1958. Counsel submits that a representation was submitted for review/reconsideration to the authorities who placed him under suspension but now the period of appeal has expired and in these circumstances, if any appeal is preferred, it might be possible that the authority may not consider it on merits. Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State,2005 (9)RDD3962 and Samrath Singh Vs. State, 2010 (1)WLC562. Taking assistance thereof, counsel further submits that no circular can govern the discretion of the competent authority which has to take an independent view of the matter whether or not to put an employee under CWP-9080/10 (2) suspension which was desirable in the interest of administration. In view of the effective statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 22 of Rules, 1958, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if appeal is preferred within one month from today, the same be treated within limitation and it is expected from the appellate authority to decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months thereafter in accordance with law taking note of the judgments referred to supra and it may be communicated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he will be at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under law. With these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.2 9080cw10Jul19Fnl.doc