[2026:RJ-JD:19178]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1930/2026 PETITIONER:

Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shishupal Ji, Age 50 years, R/o Village & Post Hingonia, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota.

Versus RESPONDENT:

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., New Power House, Jodhpur.

Through its Secretary (Admn.)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Arora Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Bhavit Sharma Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

20/04/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 (Annx.11) to the extent of continuing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order in the Office of Zonal Chief Engineer (BZ), JdVVNL, Bikaner may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to give regular posting to the petitioner commensurate to his designation.

Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Rajendra Choudhary, Technician, committed suicide on 28.03.2025 while posted under the office of Junior Engineer, Nimaj. On the next day, i.e., 29.03.2025, an FIR bearing No.118/2025 came to be lodged at Police Station Jaitaran, District Beawar for offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the present petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Engineer at Jaitaran. It is stated that after investigation, the police submitted a final negative report, finding no material to proceed against the petitioner. Though the complainant sought time to file a protest petition, no criminal proceedings are stated to be pending against the petitioner as on date.

3. Immediately after the incident, the petitioner was placed under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) vide order dated 29.03.2025. Subsequently, on 12.05.2025, he was placed under suspension on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report of a committee constituted by the respondent-department, which prima facie opined that the petitioner was responsible for harassment of the deceased.

4. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet dated 10.06.2025 under Regulation 7 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Regulations of 1962’). The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet.

5. In the meantime, petitioner’s representation for revocation of suspension remained undecided which compelled him to file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21089/2025, wherein this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2025, stayed the operation of the suspension order. In purported compliance thereof, the respondents passed order dated 11.12.2025, whereby instead of reinstating the petitioner on a regular post, he was continued under APO at Bikaner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the suspension order itself has been stayed by this Court, the natural and logical consequence was reinstatement of the petitioner on a regular posting. Continuation under APO, despite judicial intervention, amounts to circumventing the order of this Court.

7. It is further contended that the very foundation of the allegations, namely the criminal case, has culminated in a negative final report, and therefore, continuation of adverse service conditions like APO is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is argued that APO is not to be resorted to as a punitive or indefinite measure and can be invoked only in limited contingencies as per Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which are applicable in the present case. The impugned order, it is submitted, is non-sp