SBCWP5843/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5843/2010 Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others Date of Order ::: 29.04.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Amit Singh, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner, who is presently holding post of Lower Division Clerk, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.09.2002. Though the challan has been filed in the said matter but it has not proceeded further as charges have yet not been framed and trial will take its own time. The petitioner is facing agony of suspension for almost eight years by now. The petitioner although made representation for reconsideration under Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeals) Regulations, 1962, but the authority has failed SBCWP5843/2010 // 2 // to consider the same. He further submits that without examining continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of State Government dated 10th August, 2001 while deciding representation/review of suspension submitted by employee under Rule 13(5) of the Regulations, 1962. Counsel has further placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported in 2005 (9) RDD 3962 (Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, and 2009 WLC (UC) 701, Vishnu Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. State and Others, and submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10.08.2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13 (5) of the Regulations, 1962. Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to direct petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dated 02.09.2002 before competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Regulations, 1962, who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments referred to above and SBCWP5843/2010 // 3 // pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to petitioner and petitioner, if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//