SBCWP6833/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6833/2010 Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 12.05.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rahul Tiwari, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Petitioner is holding the post of Teacher Gr.II. In 2003 his wife lodged FIR No.255/2003 at Police Station Khairthal (Alwar) against him for offence punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and ultimate the police submitted final report. In 2005 she again filed FIR No.103/2005 at Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. In that matter petitioner remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours and thereafter was released on bail by the court. On a complaint sent by his wife, respondents placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 03.10.2005 and served a charge-sheet on him initiating departmental enquiry. In the criminal case, the police filed charge-sheet and the court has framed charges against him. However, out of 12 witnesses only one witness has been examined and case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 31.07.2010. The trial will take its own time. Petitioner although made application for reconsideration under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil SBCWP6833/2010 // 2 // Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') but the authority has failed to consider the same on the point whether continuation of suspension is required or not. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has 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. 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 03.10.2005 before competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958, who may independently examine the same and may also take note of the judgments referred to above and 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//