Jitendra Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2026

April 4, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Jitendra Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2026

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2026:RJ-JD:11889]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2599/2026

Shyam Bihari Bairwa S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of 36, Aashapurna Enclave, Pal Road, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Personnel
(K-3/inquiry), Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer Cum Additional Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Chief Engineer-II, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/2026
Hemant Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Om Prakash Vaishnav, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of Phed Colony, Khara Road, Ahore,
District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Personnel,
(K-3/inquiry), Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer Cum Additional Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Chief Engineer-II, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3166/2026
Jitendra Trivedi S/o Shri Chand Ratan Trivedi, Aged About 53
Years, Resident Of Chand Pol Chowka, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Personnel
(K-3/inquiry), Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jaipur.

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (2 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

3. The Chief Engineer Cum Additional Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Chief Engineer II, Public Health
Engineering Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
with Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
Mr. Kailash Prajapat
For Respondent(s) : 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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

Reportable

SPONSORED

1 Arguments concluded on 09.03.2026
2 Judgment reserved on 09.03.2026
3 Full judgment or operative part pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 17/03/2026

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

approximately to the tune of Rs.200 Crores.

9. Aggrieved by the said suspension order dated 11.08.2025,

the petitioners approached this Court in the first round of litigation

by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16646/2025. The said

petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure-

6) with directions to the respondents therein to consider the

representation of the petitioners and to decide the same within a

period of 15 days, in accordance with law.

10. Upon the representation for revocation of suspension being

dismissed by the respondents, second round of litigation by way of

the writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.23955/2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23960/2025,

and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23958/2025 were preferred by

the petitioner Nos.1, 2, and 3 respectively; however, the same

were also disposed of vide orders dated 15.12.2025 with liberty to

avail the alternate remedies. Again, initiating the third round of

litigation, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2026, S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.82/2026, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.80/2026

were filed by the petitioners No.1, 2, and 3 respectively, which

were later withdrawn vide orders dated 13.01.2026 with liberty to

avail remedies before the appropriate forum, in accordance with

law.

11. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners preferred an appeal before

the learned RCSAT, Jodhpur as in Appeal Nos. 110/2010,

108/2026, 109/2026. The learned RCSAT, vide the impugned

order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure-10), rejected and dismissed

the said appeal. Hence, the fourth round of litigation is initiated by

filing the present petitions.

CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS

12. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contended that the impugned suspension order dated 11.08.2025,

the order passed by the learned RCSAT dated 22.01.2026, and the

other prejudicial orders are bad and legally unsustainable, as the

suspension of the petitioners has been continued for a prolonged

period contrary to the settled position of law.

13. It was contended that the suspension order suffers from the

vice of the absence of any live and proximate nexus between the

alleged misconduct and the petitioners, inasmuch as the tender

process was awarded in the year 2018, whereas the petitioner

No.1 joined the concerned Division at Jalore only in the year 2021,

the petitioner No.2 joined in the year 2022, and the petitioner

No.3 joined in the year 2023. It was alleged that the officers

actually involved in the tender process in the year 2018 have

wrongly been left out, and the petitioners have wrongly been

implicated.

14. Learned counsel further apprised this Court that the

petitioners have wrongly been placed under suspension vide the

order dated 11.08.2025, and till date, no order has been passed

by the respondent-department for extension of the suspension

period. It was further submitted that the charge-sheets came to

be issued on 20.11.2025, after a lapse of more than 90 days from

the date of suspension, which is against the settled position of law

vis-à-vis suspension and its continuation. Moreover, it was

submitted that no order has been passed by the respondent-

department for the extension of the suspension period.

15. In support of contentions made insofar, learned counsel

placed reliance upon the dictum spelled out by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India,

(2015) 7 SCC 291, as well as upon the ratio laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 in

Jahangir Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., D.B. S.A.W.

No.662/2022 and it was urged that the continuation of

suspension cannot be sustained without due application of mind

and without proper examination of the relevant circumstances.

16. It was lastly averred that the appreciation of facts and

position of law has been wrongly evaluated by the learned RCSAT

and in light of the aforesaid grounds and submissions, it was

prayed that the present petitions should be allowed.

CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-department have drawn the attention of this Court to

the fact that the gravity of the offences alleged against the

petitioners is not minor but extraordinary and serious in nature.

18. It was contended that serious financial irregularities which

are unbecoming of government servants, have been committed by

the petitioners, and the same have been duly reflected in the

charge-sheets dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure-7).

19. It was submitted that as many as six charges have been

framed, wherein the petitioners along with other officers have

cumulatively caused loss to the state exchequer and public utility

services to the extent of approximately Rs.200 Crores.

20. It was further contended that the work/execution experience

was also furnished in a fraudulent manner by the petitioners, and

the case involves fraud, breach of trust, and grave financial

irregularities committed by the government servants.

21. It was urged that if the petitioners are allowed to continue in

service, they may hamper the ongoing investigation, affect the

public trust, and will continue to interfere with the functioning of

the respondent-department.

22. Adverting to the jurisdictional aspect, it was urged that the

present petitions have been filed against the order dated

22.01.2026 passed by the learned RCSAT, invoking the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the scope

of interference under the said provision is strictly circumscribed;

the Court may examine the legality and propriety of the order

passed by the learned RCSAT but cannot re-appreciate the

disputed questions of fact.

23. It was therefore submitted that the limited issues for

consideration before this Court are whether the order passed by

the learned RCSAT suffers from any illegality or perversity, and

whether the charge-sheets issued after the lapse of 90 days from

the date of the suspension order are valid under the eyes of law or

not.

24. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 13 of the CCA

Rules, 1958 does not prescribe any specific/absolute time limit for

the continuation of suspension and therefore, the suspension may

validly continue beyond the period of 90 days where justified

circumstances exist.

25. Lastly, it was submitted that the judgments upon which

reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners

have been misinterpreted, and in fact, the legal position emerging

therefrom does not by any means prohibit the continuation of

suspension beyond the period of 90 days where the circumstances

of the case so warrant.

26. Making the above submissions, it was prayed by learned

counsel to dismiss the present writ petitions with an exemplary

cost.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

27. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the parties at length and upon assiduous perusal of the

material available on record and considering the judgments cited

at the Bar, this Court has formulated the following views:

28. As a threshold matter, it is observed that the present writ

petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, challenging the order passed by the learned RCSAT.

However, in light of the supervisory jurisdiction as enshrined in

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and relying upon the ratios

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam

Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329

and Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors., (2015) 5

SCC 423, it is a well-settled proposition of law that the mere filing

of petitions under the nomenclature of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India does not, by any means, imply that the

present petitions shall be adjudicated under the original writ

jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

29. The present petitions have been filed challenging an

adjudicatory order of the learned RCSAT. The statutory

competence of this Court to interfere with such an order stems

directly from the constitutional mandate provided under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. The provisions enshrined under

Article 227 are reproduced as under:-

“227. Power of superintendence over all courts
by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence
over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, the High Court may–(a)call for
returns from such courts; (b)make and issue general
rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice
and proceedings of such courts; and (c)prescribe
forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be
kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to
be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of
such courts and to attorneys, advocates and
pleaders practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or
tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall
not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for
the time being in force, and shall require the
previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer
on a High Court powers of superintendence over any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.”

(emphasis supplied)

30. Upon consideration thereof and operating as the sentinel on

the qui vive (watchful guardian of rights), this Court is ought to

examine the legality and propriety of any order passed by the

court or tribunal subordinate to it except the one created by or

under any law related to the Armed Forces. Consequently, despite

the titular nomenclature, the present petitions shall be

entertained, evaluated, and adjudicated exclusively under the

supervisory jurisdiction enshrined in Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

31. Upon careful examination of the impugned order dated

22.01.2026 passed by the learned RCSAT, it has been observed

that the contents of suspension order along with the subsequent

orders have been merged into the impugned order passed by the

learned RCSAT and it is evident that the learned RCSAT

meticulously evaluated the timeline of the departmental

proceedings. The suspension was ordered on 11.08.2025, and the

charge-sheets under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules were issued on

20.11.2025, merely nine days after the expiry of the prescribed

period of three months. The learned RCSAT correctly noted that

gathering volumetric records from various locations for a financial

irregularity of such a colossal magnitude naturally entails

administrative processing, and a delay of approximately nine days

is bona fide, and the same can be condoned under the ordinary

procedural consequences. The relevant extracts of the same are

reproduced as under:-

“12. यह विवादित नहीं रहा है कि तीनों अपीलार्थीगण को दिनां क
11.08.2025 को निलम्बित किये जाने के पश्चात् दिनां क
20.11.2025 को विभागीय कार्यवाही संस्थित करते हुए राजस्थान
सविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण एवं अपील) नियम, 1958 के नियम
16 के अन्तर्गत मुसां प्सनिक कार्यवाही आरम्भ की जा चुकी है , अर्थात्

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (12 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

3 माह की निलम्बन अवधि के मात्र 9 दिन पश्चात् यह विभागीय
कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ की गई है । माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अजय
कुमार चौधरी (उपरोक्त) में प्रतिपादित न्यायिक दृष्टां त में ऐसी कोई
व्यवस्था प्रतिपादित नहीं की गई है कि 3 माह पश्चात निलम्बन स्वयमेव
समाप्त हो जायेगा। दृष्टात जहागीर अली खान (उपरोक्त) एवं एस.बी.

सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 15342/2025 मुकेश बेरवा बनाम
ए.वी.वी.एन.एल. व अन्य के प्रकरण से सम्बंधित न्यायिक दृष्टां त में भी
यह प्रकट हुआ है कि इन प्रकरणों में याचिका प्रस्तुत करने के पश्चात मी
आरोप-पत्र जारी नहीं किया गया था। नरे श कुमार से सम्बंधित प्रकरण
में सम्बंधित याचिकाकर्ता लगभग 7-8 माह से लेकर 4 वर्षों तक
निलम्बित रहे थे और उनके विरुद्ध विभागीय कार्यवाही आरम्भ नहीं हुई
थी अथवा वर्षों से लम्बित रही थी। इन दृष्टां तों में माननीय सर्वोच्च
न्यायालय व राजस्थान उच्च नयायालय की यही मंशा रही है कि
विभागीय कार्यवाही संस्थित किये जाने की मशा अथवा विभागीय
कार्यवाही आरम्भ किये जाने की प्रक्रिया अनिश्चित काल तक लम्बित
नहीं रहे और किसी भी अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही का समयबद्ध
निस्तारण किया जा सके।

13. हस्तगत प्रकरण में निलम्बन अवधि के 3 माह एवं 9 दिन पश्चात
आरोप पत्र जारी किये जा चुके हैं । यह भी महत्वपू र्ण है कि तीनों
अपीलार्थीगण के विरूद्ध लगभग 200 करोड रूपये से अधिक की
राशि के सम्बन्ध में राजकोष को गम्भीर वित्तीय हानि पहुं चाने एवं कार्य
में गम्भीर अनियमितता किये जाने का आरोप रहा है । गम्भीर वित्तीय
अनियमितता के सम्बन्ध में समस्त रे कॉर्ड विभिन्न स्थानों से सूचनाएं एवं
अन्य दस्तावेज संकलित किये जाने के पश्चात् भी 3 माह के बाद केवल
मात्र 9 दिन के विलम्ब से नियम 16 के अन्तर्गत अनुशासनिक
कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ की जा चुकी है । स्पष्ट है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा
गम्भीरता से सदभाविक व गहन प्रयासों से यह विभागीय कार्यवाही की
जा रही है । इतनी बड़ी राशि के अनियमित वित्तीय कार्य में यदि सामान्य
से केवल 9 दिन का विलम्ब आरोप पत्र जारी होने में हुआ है तो यह
पूर्णतः विभागीय प्रक्रिया के आधार पर स्वाभाविक व स‌द्भावित विलम्ब
है ।

14. जो न्याय दृष्टां त अपीलाथीगण द्वारा अपने पक्ष समर्थन में प्रस्तुत
किये गये हैं उनमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित अजय
कुमार चौधरी के प्रकरण से सम्बंधित दृष्टां त में स्वयमेक मिलम्बन
समाप्ति का सर्वमान्य सिद्धां त प्रतिपादित नहीं किया गया है । अन्य
न्यायिक दृष्टात में भी याचिका अनुसार आरोप पत्र व विभागीय कार्यवाही
सस्थित नहीं की जा सकी थी हस्तगत प्रकरण में अपीलार्थीगण द्वारा
दिनां क 14.01.2026 को जब यह अपीलें प्रस्तुत की गई, उससे
पर्याप्त समय पूर्व ही दिनाक 20.11.2025 को आरोपों का ज्ञापन
दिया जाकर तीनों विभागीय व अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही आरम्भ हो चुकी
थी। इस प्रकार वस्तुत एवं सारत यह ही याचिकाएँ वाद-कारण समाप्त
होने के पश्चात् प्रस्तुत की गई है ।

15. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
प्रतिपादित न्यायिक दृष्टातों में या रही है कि किसी भी राज्य कर्मचारी
को एक युक्तियुक्त समय तक ही निलम्बित रखा जावे और इस अवधि
में उसके विरूद्ध नियमानुसार अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ कर दी
जावे। इस निर्देश की पृष्ठभूमि में यह उद्दे श्य रहा है कि सम्बंधित
कर्मचारी अपने विरुद्ध आरोपों के सम्बन्ध में किसी भी प्रकार के
दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य को खुर्द -बुर्द नहीं करे व जाच कार्यवाही को विपरीत
रूप से प्रभावित नहीं कर सके और निष्पक्ष रूप से उसके विरुद्ध
प्रारम्भिक जां च सम्पादित की जा सके। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय व

उच्च न्यायालय का यह भी अभिमत रहा है कि इस हे तु 3 माह की
अवधि युक्तियुक्त है और इस अवधि में भी यदि कोई अनुशासनिक
कार्यवाही सस्थित नहीं की जा सकती तो कर्मचारी की सेवाओं का राज्य
कार्य हे तु उपयोग लिया जावे और उसे पुन बहाल कर दिया जावे।

16. माननीय वरिष्ठ न्यायालयों की इन समस्त न्याय दृष्टां तों में यह मशा
कभी भी नहीं रही है कि कोई भी कर्मचारी किसी प्रकार की गम्भीर
अनियमितता के सम्बन्ध में इस प्रकार 3 माह की अवधि को अपनी
प्रतिरक्षा का आधार बनाते हुए अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही से स्वयं को
सुरक्षित कर ले।

17. इस प्रकार इन तीनों ही प्रकरणों में निलम्बन अवधि के 3 माह
व्यवतीत होने के मात्र 9 दिन बाद विभागीय कार्यवाही दिनाक
20.11.2025 को संस्थित की जा चुकी है । लगभग 200 करोड
रूपये से अधिक की यह वित्तीय अनियमितता से सम्बंधित ऐसे गम्भीर
प्रकरणों में तीनों ही अधिशाषी अभियन्ताओं को तकनीकी आधार पर
कोई लाभ दिया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है विशेषकर जबकि
तीनों ही अपीले दिनाक 20.11.2025 को नियम 16 के अन्तर्गत
अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ होने के पश्चात् प्रस्तुत की गई हैं । इस
प्रकार निष्फल वादकारण के आधार पर प्रस्तुत होने से भी यह अपीले
निरस्त किये जाने योग्य हैं एवं इस आधार पर इनमें प्रत्यर्थी विभाग की
ओर से जवाब प्राप्त करने की भी आवश्यक्ता नहीं है । अतः उपरोक्त
विवेचन तथा न्यायिक दृष्टां तों के आधार पर इन तीनों अपीलों को
एत‌द्वारा निरस्त किया जाता है ।

18. यह स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि इस आदे श के बावजूद अपीलार्थीगण
के निरन्तर एवं लम्बे समय तक निलम्बित रहने के आधार पर एवं उनके
मानव संसाधन का राजकीय सेवा में उपयोग किये जाने के उद्दे श्य से
विभाग उन्हें नियमानुसार पुनः बहाल करने हे तु स्वतंत्र होगा।

19. उक्त अपील, मय स्थगन प्रार्थना पत्र, ग्राह्यता के प्रक्रम पर ही
उपर्युक्त निर्देश के साथ अन्तित रूप से निस्तारित की जाती है ।

20. मूल आदे श अपील सख्या 108/2026 जितेन्द्र त्रिवेदी बनाम
राजस्थान राज्य की अपील में रखा जाव एवं इसकी छाया प्रति उपरोक्त
वर्णित तालिका में अंकित अन्य समस्त अपीलों में रखी जावे।”

(emphasis supplied)

32. Upon an assiduous perusal of the judicial pronouncements

cited by learned counsel for the parties, including the ratio

encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar

Choudhary (supra) and the dictum of the Division Bench of this

Court in Jahangir Ali Khan (supra), upon which reliance has

been placed by the petitioners, it is distinctly observed that the

Division Bench of this Court in Jahangir Ali Khan (supra) has

squarely placed reliance on the very same principles laid down by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (14 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

Inasmuch as the legal position is no longer res integra, this Court

deems it apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts of the said

judgment, which read as under:-

“14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
Suspension Order should not extend beyond
three months if within this period the
Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not
served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the
Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served
a reasoned order must be passed for the
extension of the suspension. As in the case in
hand, the any of its offices within or outside the
State so as to sever any local or personal contact
that he may have and which he may misuse for
obstructing the investigation against him. The
Government may also prohibit him from
contacting any person, or handling records and
documents till the stage of his having to prepare
his defence. We think this will adequately
safeguard the universally recognized principle of
human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and
shall also preserve the interest of the
Government in the prosecution. We recognize
that previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of
delay, and to set time limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period
of suspension has not been discussed in prior
case law, and would not be contrary to the
interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of
the Central Vigilance Commission that pending
criminal investigation departmental proceedings
are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in
view of the stand adopted by us.

15. So far as the facts of the present case are
concerned, the Appellant has now been served
with a Charge-sheet, and, therefore, these
directions may not be relevant to him any longer.
However, if the Appellant is so advised he may
challenge his continued suspension in any
manner known to law, and this action of the
Respondents will be subject to judicial review.”

(emphasis supplied)

33. This Court has also analyzed the dictum encapsulated by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 27.03.2025,

in Mohdl. Firoz Akhatar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 10835/2022. The relevant portions of

the judgment are reproduced hereinunder:-

“4. Controversy centering on the scope and breadth of
the core legal issue concerning the continuation of the
suspension of a government servant during the pendency
of an investigation or criminal trial in connection with a
criminal offence, and the parameters governing the
same, have been decided in a detailed order/judgment
dated 27.03.2025, rendered by this Court in case title
Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016.

5. The reasons and discussion contained in Naru Lal
Meghwal’s judgment shall be read as part and parcel of
the instant order and same are not being repeated for
sake of brevity. However, it is deemed appropriate that
the concluding part of the judgment be reproduced for
ready reference, which is as below:

“CONCLUSION

25. Two questions thus arise i.e. first, whether a
government servant, either accused in an FIR or an under
trial in a pending criminal proceeding or proposed to be
prosecuted upon grant of administrative sanction for
prosecution, can continue to be suspended from service
until the conclusion of trial till he is acquitted ? Second,
does such a suspension, when prolonged due to delay not
attributable to the suspended government servant,
constitute a collateral punishment, imposed solely on the
state’ sharboring a suspicion that the accused government
servant will ultimately be convicted in the pending criminal
proceedings? In light of the circulars, ibid, and the judicial
precedents, the answer to first question is in negative, while
it is in affirmative to the second.

25.1. There is no quibble about the proposition that a
government servant accused of serious offenses–say,
corruption, fraud, or moral turpitude–may erode public
confidence if allowed to continue in service. Suspension
serves as a precautionary measure to prevent the employee
from leveraging their position to obstruct justice. The
power to suspend is inherent in the employer’s disciplinary
authority, particularly when the employee’s continuance in
office could prejudice the investigation or trial. The state
has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of
public administration. The pendency of a trial, coupled with

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (16 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

the gravity of the charges, justifies keeping the employee
out of active duty until the cloud of suspicion dissipates.

Seen from that angle, the state may be right to argue that
acquittal is the only definitive proof of innocence in such
cases, and until that threshold is met, suspension is
warranted. But, not quite so in every case.

26. However, on the flip side, prolonged suspension raises
serious concerns about fairness, equity, and the
presumption of innocence–a cornerstone of criminal
jurisprudence enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in common law
systems. Suspension, though not a punishment in theory,
has punitive consequences in practice: loss of income
(beyond subsistence allowance), stagnation of career, and
social stigma. When trials drag on for years–a common
reality in overburdened judicial system in India–
suspension becomes a defacto penalty imposed without a
finding of guilt. The employer state often suspends an
employee not because guilt is established but because it
harbors a suspicion of eventual conviction. This approach
risks inverting the burden of proof: instead of the
prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
employee must endure suspension until they prove their
innocence through acquittal. Legally, suspension is an
interim measure, not a penalty, is the settled position, yet,
when prolonged, its effects mirror those of punishment or
“disguised” punishment.

27. This predicament is more evident in cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, where delays in trials or
granting sanction for prosecution can extend suspension
indefinitely. The employee is left in suspended animation,
neither convicted nor exonerated, but yet continues to suffer
the suspension. Such a scenario offends the principle of
‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side) and the maxim
‘nemo judex in causa sua’ (no one should be a judge in
their own case), as the employer state unilaterally imposes
a sanction without any judicial oversight.

28. In light of the above discussion and Supreme Court
judgments, it is deemed appropriate that following
guidelines are culled out to be borne in mind by the
competent authority/review committee, as the case may be,
before ordering suspension, for its further continuation or
revocation thereof depending upon case to case :

Guidelines for Suspension of Government Servants Due to
Criminal Proceedings:

I. General Principles –

Suspension due to criminal proceedings should be based on
objective evaluation, not mere allegations. Innocence is
presumed until proven guilty–suspension should not serve
as punishment. Suspension must serve the public interest;

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (17 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

an FIR alone isn’t sufficient ground. Likewise grant of
prosecution sanction also must be not, per se, be a
mechanical reason to suspend, but there must be a meeting
of mind.

II. Grounds for Suspension –

Suspension may be justified if charges involve corruption,
financial misconduct, security threats, or moral turpitude.
Continued service may hinder investigation or trial. The
employee could influence witnesses or tamper with
evidence. The offense undermines public trust in the
institution.

III. Time Limits on Suspension-

If no charge sheet is filed by the prosecution in trial court
within 3months, suspension shall not be extended unless
special reasons exist and are recorded by the competent
authority and conveyed to the delinquent official. In case
charge sheet is filed in trial court within 3 months of
suspension, then the period of suspension should normally
not exceed 2 years unless trial is close to completion and it
is specifically so noted on the administrative file by the
competent authority and such reasons are conveyed in
writing to the suspended official. If criminal trial is delayed
and exceeds 3 years, the competent authority must consider
alternatives like transfer to anon-sensitive post, by revoking
suspension. Alternatively, specific reasons be again
recorded in writing justifying further continuation of
suspension and same be conveyed to the suspended
government servant.

IV. Periodic Review
Suspension must be reviewed every 4 months by the review
committee and/or the competent authority under Rule 13 (5)
of the CCA Rules, 1958. Review must assess trial progress,
continued need for suspension, and possible alternatives.
Continuation must be justified with written reasons.
V. Alternatives to Indefinite Suspension-
Instead of prolonged suspension, the competent authority
must consider Transfer to a non-sensitive role as per
Supreme Court Judgment in Ajay Chaudhary vs UOI.
VI. Distinction between Serious vs. Minor Offenses
Minor offenses (e.g., typically triable by Magistrates but not
all)don’t justify suspension. However, serious offenses (e.g.,
Sessions trials or other such crimes against society or
corruption, fraud, harassment etc.) may require immediate
action. The decision to suspend must reflect the nature and
impact of the offense.

29. In addition to the guidelines mentioned above, this
Court deems it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction
by issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan,

through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure
that all competent authorities vested with the power to
suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable
timeline for taking further action following a suspension
order passed due to pending criminal proceedings. It is thus
specifically directed that if a challan/charge sheet is not
filed before the trial court within 90 days from the date of
suspension order, the suspending authority, upon being
approached by the suspended official, must decide under
Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules whether to continue or revoke the
suspension by providing written reasons to the suspended
employee. If three years have elapsed since the
challan/charge sheet was filed and the trial remains
pending, the competent authority must reconsider the
necessity of continued suspension and convey reasons in
writing. Failure to comply with the specified timelines, as
directed, would accord the suspended government servant
an indefeasible right to seek revocation of suspension by
filing an appeal under Rule 22 of CCA Rules. Further, it is
directed that any appeal filed under Rule 22 must be
decided by the appellate authority within 30 days of receipt;
if not, reasons for the delay must be recorded in writing and
communicated to the suspended government servant.””

(emphasis supplied)

34. Furthermore, this Court has analyzed Rule 13 of the CCA

Rules, 1958 and the relevant extract of the same is reproduced as

under:-

“13. Suspension.-

(1) The Appointing Authority or any
authority to which it is subordinate or any
other authority empowered by the
Government in that behalf may place a
Government servant under suspension.

(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings
against him is contemplated or is pending,
or

(b) Where a case against him in respect of
any criminal offence is under investigation
or trial: Provided that where the order of
suspension is made by an authority lower
than the Appointing Authority, such
authority shall forthwith report to the
Appointing Authority the circumstances in
which the order was made.

(2) A Government Servant who is detained
in custody, whether on a criminal charge or

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11889] (19 of 24) [CW-2599/2026]

otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-

eight hours shall be deemed to have been
suspended with effect from the date of
detention, by an order of the Authority
competent to place a Government Servant
under suspension under sub-rule (1) and
shall remain under suspension until further
orders.

(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement from Service
imposed upon a Government Servant
under suspension is set aside in appeal or
on review under these rules and the case is
remitted for further inquiry or action or
with any other directions, the order of his
suspension shall be deemed to have
continue in force on and from the date of
the original order of dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement and shall remain in
force until further orders.

(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement from service
imposed upon a Government Servant is set
aside or declared or rendered void in
consequence or by a decision of a Court of
Law and the disciplinary authority, on a
consideration of the circumstances of the
case, decides to hold a further inquiry
against him on allegations in which the
penalty of dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement was originally
imposed, the Government Servant shall be
deemed to have been placed under
suspension by the Appointing Authority
from the date of the original order
dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement and shall continue to remain
under suspension until further orders.

(5) Any order of suspension made or
deemed to have been made under this rule
may at any time be revoked by the
authority which made or is deemed to have
made the order or by any authority to
which that authority is subordinate.”

(emphasis supplied)

35. Upon an assiduous perusal of the aforementioned judicial

precedents, legal provisions, and the facts of the instant case, this

Court is of the opinion that a suspension order may be issued

when there is a contemplation of inquiry against a public servant,

or such inquiry is pending, or when any investigation or trial for

the commission of any criminal offence is underway.

36. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that in the present case

the disciplinary proceedings, followed by the issuance of the

suspension order, were initiated against the petitioners under as

many as six grave charges of financial irregularities approximately

to the tune of Rs.200 Crores.

37. As per the facts and observations vis-à-vis the ratio laid

down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), particularly

paragraphs 14 and 15, it is clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court

that even if a suspension continues beyond a period of 90 days,

the same may be valid provided a speaking order is passed

justifying its continuation or the charge-sheet is subsequently

filed.

38. Furthermore, vide the dictum encapsulated by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohdl. Firoz Akhatar (supra), it

has been unequivocally observed that although no specific time

limit is prescribed for suspension under the statutory provisions,

the same may be continued even beyond the period of three

months if it is justified by grave reasons. It has further held that

where serious charges have been imposed/framed against a

delinquent officer, suspension may continue for an extended

period, for further 2-3 years, subject to the periodic review.

39. The settled proposition of law, as also upheld by the above-

referred judgments, makes a clear distinction between the

commission and the consequences of minor offences and serious

offences. It has been held in a plethora of judgments that the

grounds of suspension must be clearly specified and suspension

may be continued where it is necessary to maintain the public

trust and safeguard the integrity of the institution. Furthermore, it

has been held by way of the judicial precedents that the

revocation of suspension may be withheld if it has the potential to

influence witnesses or hinder the course of the investigation or the

trial.

40. The nitty-gritty of the instant dispute reveals that the alleged

scam involving a colossal sum approximately to the tune of Rs.200

Crores, as detailed under total of six charges framed in the

charge-sheets annexed to the writ petitions, constitutes a serious

and grave misconduct. Considering the gravity and seriousness of

the offence involved, the continuation of suspension qua the

petitioners is entirely justified to ensure that public faith is

maintained and that the investigation vis-à-vis the petitioners

proceeds without any obstruction or hindrance. In such

circumstances, the suspension of the petitioners can and must

lawfully continue.

41. Adverting specifically to the guidelines formulated by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Naru Lal Meghwal v. State of

Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14863/2016, which

has also been relied upon in Mohdl. Firoz Akhatar (supra), it is

reiterated that in instances where the charges involve grave

offences such as corruption, systematic fraud, and severe financial

misconduct causing colossal loss to the state exchequer,

suspension acts as a mandatory precautionary measure. The ratio

encapsulates the undeniable reality that the continued service of

an employee accused of such high magnitude misconduct may

severely hinder the ongoing investigation. Consequently, the

dictum makes it abundantly clear that for a serious offence,

suspension should not serve as an automatic casualty to mere

technical delays in filing the charge-sheet; instead, it is subject to

a rigorous system of periodic review by the competent authority.

In the matter at hand, the learned RCSAT has correctly aligned its

reasoning with the judicial mandate passed in the above-referred

dictum.

42. Further adverting to the petitioners’ argument asserting

hostile discrimination, specifically the plea that the other officers

allegedly involved during the tender process have been left out

from the disciplinary actions and the petitioners have wrongly

been implicated, this Court finds the contention bereft of any legal

substance. It is trite law that the fundamental right to Equality

enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not

envisage or promote ‘negative equality’. Merely because certain

other similarly situated officers may thus far have evaded

suspension or disciplinary proceeding, it does not confer an

indefeasible right upon the petitioners to claim parity in illegality

and escape accountability for their own alleged misconduct. As

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments,

including but not limited to the dictum encapsulated in Secretary,

Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1

SCC 35, that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be

relied upon to perpetuate the commission of an illegal act.

43. It is further noted that Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 does

not prescribe any absolute time limit for suspension. In view of

the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the findings

arrived at by the learned RCSAT are legally sound, well-reasoned,

and suffer from no jurisdictional error.

PARTING NOTE AND CONCLUSION

44. Before parting, this Court deems it apposite to note with

serious concern the conduct of the petitioners. A perusal of the

record unequivocally reflects that the petitioners have approached

this Court for the fourth occasion in relation to the exact same

cause of action. The conduct of the petitioners in filing back-to-

back writ petitions, withdrawing them, and re-approaching the

forums constitute a textbook example of vexatious litigation,

amounting to blatant conduct of forum shopping and bench

hunting. The judicial process cannot be allowed to be misused by

compulsive litigants who seek to over complicate administrative

actions through repetitive and vexatious filings, which places an

unnecessary burden on the administration of justice and the said

conduct is contrary to the settled position of law vis-à-vis the

misuse of judicial process.

45. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is

of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to establish

any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the

impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned RCSAT.

Thus, no inference is warranted upon the impugned order by this

Court.

46. Therefore, the present writ petitions being bereft of any

merits stand dismissed. Considering the vexatious conduct of the

petitioners, the deliberate forum shopping, and the repeated filing

of petitions which amount to unnecessary and frivolous litigation,

contrary to the settled position of law regarding misuse of judicial

process, costs of Rs.50,000/- are imposed on the petitioner in

each of the writ petitions.

47. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

48. A copy of the judgment shall be placed in all the connected

petitions.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

24 to 26-Arun/-

(D.B. SAW/416/2026 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon27/03/2026
(Downloaded 03/04/2026atat12:58:28
09:06:36PM)
PM)

[ad_1]

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Jitendra Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur