Partly allowed

Mahesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ram Pratap Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2026CW/17034/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed a writ petition challenging the change of a suspended employee's headquarters from Jaipur to Barmer. The court held the transfer to Barmer appeared punitive and directed a change to a nearby district.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.07.2026 regarding change of headquarters from Jaipur to Barmer is quashed. Petitioner to be changed to nearby district; respondents must act within 15 days.

Mahesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ram Pratap Meena Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35329]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17034/2026 CNR: RJHC020832762026 | URN: CW / 35605U / 2026

¶4

Mahesh Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Ram Pratap Meena, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 84, Prem Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Ka3/compalints), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

02/09/2026

¶16

Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, learned AGC appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

Limited grievance raised by the petitioner is that while passing order dated 13.07.2026, although, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in exercise of Rule 13(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be

[2026:RJ-JP:35329]

[CW-17034/2026]

(2 of 3)

referred as 'the Rules of 1958'), yet headquarter of the petitioner has been changed from Jaipur to Barmer.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for the alleged allegation of violation of provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel submits that till date neither chargesheet in criminal case has been filed, nor petitioner has been served with any charge-sheet in any of the disciplinary inquiry. Learned counsel also submits that since the proposed allegations in criminal case are serious in nature, therefore, petitioner will have to remain in contact of his counsel at Jaipur for defending his cause. Barmer is the border district of State of Rajasthan and is at distance of around 600 Kms. from Jaipur.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, while maintaining the suspension order, the respondents may be directed to change headquarter of the petitioner from Barmer to any of the nearby District.

¶24

Although, learned counsel for the respondents objected to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, while placing under suspension, the competent authority has rightly changed his headquarter from Jaipur to Barmer, with the intention to keep the petitioner away from Jaipur so that he may not interfere in the investigation process, nor would influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and and perused the material available on record.

[2026:RJ-JP:35329]

[CW-17034/2026]

(3 of 3)

This Court is in complete agreement of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that in the cases involving serious nature of allegations that too of commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while placing an employee under suspension, his headquarter is bound to be changed, yet no justification has come forward with the respondents for deciding one of the farthest district of the State as headquarter of the petitioner, and as such the order dated 13.07.2026, so far as it relates to change of headquarter, appears to be punitive at this pre-mature stage.

¶30

In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. Order dated 13.07.2026, so far as relates to change of headquarter of petitioner from Jaipur to Barmer is hereby quashed and set aside, with further directions to the respondents to change the headquarter of the petitioner to any of the districts nearby to District Jaipur during suspension period.

¶31

Necessary exercise in this regard shall be carried out within a period of 15 days. The respondents are also under an obligation to review the suspension order after completion of investigation/filing of charge-sheet and the petitioner would also be at liberty to make a representation in this regard at appropriate stage.

¶32

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

¶33

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶34

14/DIVYA

Mahesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ram Pratap Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ram Pratap Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases