SBCWP3823/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3823/2010 Amlesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order ::: 02.04.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Amit Singh for petitioner. #### By the Court:- Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Sub Inspector, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.11.2006. However, after filing of challan, charge has not been framed so far and trial will take its own time. At the same time, he is facing agony of suspension for last more than 3½ years by now. He although made application for reconsideration under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, but SBCWP3823/2010 // 2 // the authority has failed to consider the same. 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 dated 10th of August, 2001 while deciding the representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA)Rules, 1958. Learned counsel has relied on judgments of this Court reported in 2005 (9) RDD (Raj.) 3962, Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, and in 2009 WLC [UC]-701, Vishnu Kr. Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Others, and submits that Circular issued by State Government dated 10.08.2001 will not supersede statutory requirement which is to be complied with by authority concerned under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958. 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 22.11.2006 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the SBCWP3823/2010 // 3 // instructions dated 10th of August, 2001 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 if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. anil