CWP-9252/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9252/2010 Shrawan Lal Gujar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 21.7.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mahendra Sharma, for petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner while holding the post of Gram Sewak, on account of criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dt. 4.8.06 (Ann.2) and in terms of Chapter-XIII of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, as per Rule 298 of the Rules procedure provided under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules,1958 has been adopted by the respondent. Counsel submits that charge has been framed and trial will take its own time while he is facing agony of suspension for almost four years by now. In view of Rule 298 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Rules, 1958 are applicable upon the employee of Zila Parishad and Rule 13(5) clearly mandates review/reconsideration of the order of suspension passed by the competent authority. Counsel 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 CWP-9252/10 (2) Government dt.10th August, 2001 while deciding 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 a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State & Ors. (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel 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, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/ review of the order of suspension dt. 4.8.06 (Ann.2) 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 the judgments (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. VS Shekhawat/- 9252CW2010July21FnlDE-SuspRep.doc