The Rajasthan High Court has restored the suspension of a government medical officer facing workplace sexual harassment allegations, setting aside a tribunal order that had quashed the suspension over the delay in serving a charge-sheet.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in an order dated October 8, 2026, held that the absence of a charge-sheet within the initial three-month period does not automatically make a suspension order illegal. The Court also directed the department to complete the disciplinary proceedings preferably within six months of serving the charge-sheet.
A Block Chief Medical Officer was suspended on January 16, 2026, following a complaint by a Female Health Worker alleging sexual harassment at the workplace. The suspension was ordered under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal quashed the suspension on March 19, 2026, on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been served within three months. The State Government challenged that decision before the High Court.
The State argued that disciplinary proceedings were under consideration when the suspension order was issued and that the department had begun preparing the charge-sheet. The medical officer opposed the petition, submitting that he had already been reinstated and that the charge-sheet was served on August 19, 2026.
The High Court examined whether the suspension order contemplated disciplinary proceedings and whether failure to serve a charge-sheet within three months necessarily invalidated the suspension.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the suspension order, read as a whole, indicated the authority’s intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Although it did not expressly use the words “contemplation of inquiry,” a direction to prepare the memorandum of charges demonstrated that the proceedings were intended to follow.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Rajasthan High Court observed:
“Suspension should not be extended beyond three months if charge-sheet is not served, but the Hon’ble Apex Court has never held that in absence of charge-sheet the suspension becomes illegal or should be quashed automatically. The said judgment only provides that the suspension order should be reviewed and reasons should be recorded for its extension. The judgment does not lay down that non-service of charge-sheet within three months will result into quashing of suspension.”
The Court observed that the medical officer had approached the Tribunal before the three-month period had expired, stating, “The action of the respondent was premature.”
It further emphasised that workplace harassment complaints require careful handling to protect the complainant and preserve the fairness of the inquiry.
Allowing the State Government’s petition, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated March 19, 2026, thereby reviving the suspension order dated January 16, 2026.
The department was directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings preferably within six months from the date the charge-sheet was served, ensuring that the medical officer received a fair opportunity to be heard. The officer was also directed to cooperate with the inquiry and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Others v. Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17704/2026
