1. Challenge to suspension of government servants for alleged financial irregularities of Rs.200 Crores under PPP-ESCO Model. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 571
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Shyam Bihari Bairwa S/o Shri Sukha Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2599 of 2026, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2026, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2026
Decided On : 17-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Mathur with Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi Mr. Kailash Prajapat
For the Respondent: Mr. Arpit Samaria for Mr. N. S. Rathore, AAG Mr. Nitesh Mathur, AGC with Mr. Ravi Shankar Mr. P.S. Chundawat, AGC with Mr. Mayanak Vyas
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Mathur with Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi Mr. Kailash Prajapat
For the Respondent: Mr. Arpit Samaria for Mr. N. S. Rathore, AAG Mr. Nitesh Mathur, AGC with Mr. Ravi Shankar Mr. P.S. Chundawat, AGC with Mr. Mayanak Vyas
Suspension beyond 90 days is valid if a charge-sheet is subsequently issued or a reasoned extension exists. In cases of grave financial misconduct, minor delays in charge-sheet issuance are condonable, and Article 14 does not permit "negative equality" to escape accountability for alleged misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13 and 16 - Suspension of government servants - Continuation of suspension beyond three months - Financial irregularities - Legality of suspension when charge-sheet is issued shortly after the 90-day period - In cases involving colossal financial loss and high-magnitude misconduct, a minor administrative delay in issuing charge-sheets can be condoned as bona fide - Suspension is justified as a precautionary measure to maintain public trust and prevent obstruction of investigation (Paras 31, 40, 41).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Scope of interference with orders of a tribunal - High Court examines the legality and propriety of the order but does not re-appreciate disputed questions of fact (Paras 28-30).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to Equality - Negative Equality - Parity in illegality cannot be claimed - The fact that other similarly situated officers may have evaded disciplinary proceedings does not confer a right upon the petitioners to escape accountability for their own alleged misconduct (Para 42).
(D) Misuse of Judicial Process - Vexatious litigation - Forum shopping - Repeated filing and withdrawal of petitions for the same cause of action constitutes misuse of the judicial process, justifying the imposition of exemplary costs (Para 44).
Facts of the case:
Government servants were placed under suspension due to alleged serious financial irregularities amounting to approximately Rs. 200 Crores in a public-private partnership project. Charge-sheets were issued under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules after a period of more than 90 days from the date of suspension. The petitioners challenged the suspension and the subsequent order of the tribunal which had dismissed their appeal for revocation, contending that the suspension was prolonged without a formal extension order and lacked a proximate nexus since they joined the division after the tender process was completed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the gravity of the charges involving systematic fraud and colossal loss to the state exchequer justified the continuation of suspension. A delay of nine days beyond the three-month window for issuing charge-sheets was deemed bona fide given the volumetric records required for the investigation. The tribunal's order was found to be legally sound and not perverse.
Issues: Whether the continuation of suspension beyond 90 days without a formal extension order, where charge-sheets were issued shortly thereafter, is legally sustainable; and whether the petitioners can claim parity under Article 14 if other involved officials were not suspended.
Ratio Decidendi: Suspension may continue beyond three months if a charge-sheet is issued or a reasoned order for extension is passed. In cases of grave misconduct, the need to safeguard the investigation and public trust outweighs technical delays in filing charge-sheets. Furthermore, the principle of "negative equality" prevents a party from claiming relief based on the illegal omission of action against others.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on each petitioner.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- equality before law (Para 42)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued suspension lacked live nexus and exceeded 90 days without extension; respondents cited grave financial irregularities. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
3. Court held suspension valid despite marginal delay in charge-sheet; delay of nine days was bona fide due to administrative processing. (Para 31 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 )
4. Suspension may continue beyond 90 days if justified by grave reasons and charge-sheet served; no absolute time limit exists. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 each for vexatious litigation and forum shopping. (Para 46 )
6. Can suspension be continued beyond 90 days if no charge-sheet is served within that period?
Yes, if justified by grave reasons and a reasoned order is passed, or charge-sheet is subsequently filed, even with marginal delay. (Para 31 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 )
7. Is the doctrine of negative equality applicable to suspension of government servants?
No, Article 14 does not permit a claim of parity in illegality; others evading action does not confer a right to be similarly treated. (Para 42 )
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to, is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised qua the legality and validity of the suspension order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-4), the subsequent order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-9), and the adjudicatory order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure-10) passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘RCSAT’), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners seeking revocation of suspension was dismissed.
2. Consequently, considering the fact that the present writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the mutual consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2599/2026 titled Shyam Bihari Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable to the connected petitions herein mutatis mutandis.
3. The lead petition is filed with the following prayers:-
“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the orders dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-4), 31.12.2025 (Annexure-9) and 22.01.2026 (Annexure-10) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to perform & discharge his duties on the post of Executive Engineer, Division-Jalore.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
4. Hence, by way of the present petitions, it has been prayed that the petitioners may be permitted to perform and discharge the duties on the post of Executive Engineer, Division Jalore.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Before adverting to the rival submissions and entering upon the realm of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is considered apposite to delineate the factual background and the circumstances, in a nutshell, which have culminated in the present adjudication.
6. The petitioners were working on the post of Executive Engineer, Division Jalore with the respondent-department, having been transferred to the said post vide order dated 20.04.2021, 16.06.2022, and 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2) respectively. The foundational dispute stems from a communication along with four Notice Inviting Tenders (for short, ‘N.I.Ts’) dated 11.10.2018 and the work order dated 24.12.2018 issued by the respondent- department, which pertain to the supplying, installation, operation, and maintenance of energy-efficient pump machinery under the Urban Water Supply Scheme, executed under the Public Private Partnership with an Energy Saving Company (for short, ‘PPP-ESCO Model’) for a period of 15 years. It is pertinent to note that the said work order was allotted during the year 2017-18.
7. It is alleged that certain irregularities resulting in financial loss occurred on account of the conduct of the petitioners/officers, which eventually reached the courts. In anticipation of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings vis-à-vis financial irregularities, allegedly committed in the operation and maintenance of the said scheme, suspension order dated 11.08.2025 qua the petitioners was issued under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘CCA Rules, 1958’).
8. It is pertinent to note that detailed charge-sheets, in pursuance thereof, were duly issued on 20.11.2025 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 (Annexure-7), wherein the allegations levelled qua the petitioners specify that the irregularities were appr
