CW 645/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.645/2010 Rajnesh Kumar Mathur Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 03/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kumawat, AAG, for respondents *** Petitioner, who is presently holding the post of UDC, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dt.25th June, 2004. Counsel submits that after filing of challan, no progress has taken place and charge is yet to be framed against him. However, petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than six years by now. Counsel submits that order of suspension of one Mr. Ravi Shanker Srivastava, who is also a co-accused in the criminal case registered against him, has been revoked by the State Government vide order dt.15th January, 2010 in view of order passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4202/08. Counsel submits that petitioner is going to retire in April, 2011 and trial will take its own time. He although made application for reconsideration U/r.13(5) of the Rules, but the CW 645/2010 [2] 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 dt. 10th 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. Counsel has further placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962 (Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and so also in 2009 WLC [UC]- 701, Vishnu Kr. Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. and 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 Rule 13(5) of the Rules. Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioners to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dt.25th June, 2004 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of CW 645/2010 [3] the judgments 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 law. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA645CW2010 03-03.doc