SBCWP NO.3137/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3137/2010. Sumant Kumar Koli Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- April 20, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. ***** BY THE COURT:- Counsel submits that the petitioner, who is holding the post of sub Inspector, Police, was placed under suspension vide order dated 6/12/2007 (Ann.2) on account of a criminal case being registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in exercise of powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “Rules of 1958”). Counsel further submits that in the criminal case instituted against him, after the charge being framed, the matter is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence and trial will take its own time and he is facing agony of suspension for last more than three years by now. He although made representation for reconsideration/reviewing under Rule 13(5) of Rules of 1958, however, the same was remained unheeded only because of the Circular SBCWP NO.3137/10. 2 issued by the State Government dated 10/8/2001 which has compelled him to approach this court by filing the instant petition. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005(9) RDD (Raj.) 3962 decided on 20/9/2005 and in 2009 WLC UC (Raj.) 701. Counsel further submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10/8/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of 1958. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation for review /reconsideration of the order of suspension dated 6/12/2007 (Ann.2) before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958, who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10/8/2001 and may also take note of the judgment referred to (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner and if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under the law. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil