[2026:RJ-JP:15160]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 516/2026 Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Bholaram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Jhareda, Post Mia, District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Alwar (Raj.)

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gauttam with Ms. Saakshi Meena and Ms. Aarti Bai Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena, Mr. Ashutosh Udawat and Mr. Sumit Purohit for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

10/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 02.01.2026, whereunder, the petitioner was suspended by referring to the investigation report, under which, the Investigating Agency allegedly found that the petitioner also allegedly indulged in the fabrication of documents which is foundation for getting employment of third parties.

2. In the investigation report, it is allegedly made that the petitioner allegedly hand in glove along with the candidates in the preparation of forged documents and also allegedly allowed appointment of such candidates. By referring such allegations, the impugned suspension order has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order do not specifically refer to any contemplation of enquiry and there is no enquiry also pending. As per the Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958, the suspension can only be invoked when there was a contemplation or pending of any enquiry. The impugned suspension order do not refer to any contemplation in occasion of suspension order and the same is bad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order dated 06.12.2021 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in Yogesh Acharya v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: SBCW No. 10010/2020, whereunder, the learned Judge has observed that the condition required under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was not complied with particularly that the invoking suspension power requires either disciplinary proceedings are pending or the proceeding of contemplation.

5. The above legal position is not in dispute. The very provision under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is specific in this regard. In the present case, there are material before the authorities for contemplation and the subsequent conduct of the Authority would also makes clear that they also issue the charge-sheet, which conduct demonstrates that there is no contemplation with the impugned suspension order has been passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to refute the investigation report, which is the foundation for the present suspension which refers to certain allegations, which amount to criminal act. This means when the suspension order allegedly passed, the respondent-Authority has already had a material for proceeding with the enquiry and further a charge-sheet has also issued. The argument that the impugned suspension order do not specifically refer contemplation has to be rejected for the reason that the Authority, which is suspending the order has a material and further the conduct of the respondent-Authority in issuing the charge-sheet itself manifestation of contemplation as required under the provision. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J PKS/34