CWP-9245/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9245/2010 Manish Gupta Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 21.7.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. N.K. Singhal, for petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Junior Engineer, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dt.20.6.07. He further submits that after filing of charge sheet, charge has been framed so far and trial will take its own time. However, petitioner is facing agony of suspension for almost three years by now. He although made representation for reconsideration under Reg.9(5) of Erstwhile RSEB Employees (CC&A) Regulation,1962, but the same remained unheeded which compelled him to approach this Court by filing instant petition. He further submits that without examining the continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt.10th August,2001 while deciding the representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee under Reg.9(5) of Erstwhile RSEB Employees (CC&A) CWP-9245/10 (2) Regulation,1962. Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State & Ors. (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt.10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Reg.9(5) of Regulation,1962. Without going into merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/ review of the order of suspension dt. 20.6.07 (Ann.1) before the competent authority under Reg.9(5) of the Erstwhile RSEB Employees (CC&A) Regulation, 1962, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. VS Shekhawat/- 9245CW2010July21FnlDE-SuspRep.doc