##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:27791]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11072/2026 URN: CW / 24623U / 2026

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel (A-3/inquiry), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Khairthal, Tijara.

----Petitioners Versus Dr. Maneesha, W/o Dr. Arjun Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 102, Sirsi Road, Veer Tejaji Gali, Panchyawala, Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Yashwant Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma and Ayush Bansal HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

20/07/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.2630/2025 whereby the appeal as filed by the respondent employee against her order of suspension dated 09.04.2025 and further relieving order dated 21.04.2025, stood allowed.

2. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The employee was suspended only on basis of the news item published in the newspapers;

(ii) An employee could be suspended only in contemplation of inquiry or pendency of any inquiry whereas in the case at hand, there was neither any inquiry pending nor was contemplated;

(iii) No preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter;

(iv) No notice was served on the employee prior to passing of the order of suspension;

(v) Suspension is a severe punishment and hence, order of suspension cannot be passed cursorily;

(vi) No charge-sheet had been served on the employee even after three months of the suspension order been passed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the Division Bench judgments passed in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Manvendra Singh; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1111/2019 (decided on 04.02.2020) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.925/2025 (decided on 19.09.2025) and further, the judgments of this Court in Kiran Singaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9652/2025 (decided on 10.07.2025) and Brijmohan Sihag Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7999/2025 (decided on 24.04.2025) submitted that all the grounds on which the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal are erroneous and in contravention to law.

4. Counsel submitted that no provision of law prescribes for a mandatory preliminary inquiry or service of notice prior to an employee being placed under suspension. Further, an inquiry was definitely contemplated qua the respondent employee as is evident from the order of suspension. The same clearly reflects a direction for the preparation of a charge-sheet and forwarding the same to the Authority.

5. Per contra Counsel for the respondents while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court (at Jodhpur) in Yogesh Acharya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10010/2020 (decided on 06.12.2021) and Naresh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1788/2024 (decided on 21.02.2025) submitted that an order of suspension is mandatorily required to record the fact of an inquiry either being pending or being contemplated. The same not being the fact here, order of suspension being not in consonance with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958), has rightly been set aside by the learned Tribunal.

6. Counsel further submits that serving of a charge-sheet within a period of three months of the suspension is also a mandate as per law and hence, the findings as recorded by th