ORDER : VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication in the case of Om Prakash Pandiya v. The State of Rajasthan : 2015 (4) WLC (Raj.) 583, which has been followed in a subsequent adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State: SBCWP Number 7837/2016, decided on 17th November, 2016, observing thus: “A bare look at the order Annex.8 clearly indicates that the respondents have, pursuant to the Circular dated 10/8/2001, placed the petitioner under suspension on account of registration of the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court in the case of Om Prakash Pandiya (supra) while dealing with the Circular dated 10/8/2001 held as under:— “Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the circular dated 10.8.2001, whereby an arthritic and unyielding condition has been imposed upon the departmental heads for mandatorily placing the government servants covered by the situations No. 1, 2 and 3 prescribed in the circular, under suspension upon the occurrence of the event described therein is absolutely bad in the eye of law. Accordingly, while allowing the writ petition, it is hereby directed that the circular dated 10.8.2001 shall henceforth be treated to be nothing further than in the nature of guideline and of advisory nature to the departmental heads in the matters pertaining to suspension of government servants in any of the situations stipulated therein.” A bare look at the findings of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Pandiya (supra) reveals that the Circular dated 10/8/2001 has been held to be absolutely bad in the eye of law and, thereafter, the Court has directed that the said Circular shall be treated as nothing further than in the nature of guideline and of advisory nature pertaining to suspension of Government servants. The fact that this Court directed the said stipulations in the Circular dated 10/8/2001 in the nature of guideline and of advisory nature, the competent authority while putting any employee under suspension based on the said Circular is required to record reasons and cannot follow the same mechanically as the said Circular, as such, has been held to be bad in the eye of law by this Court. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents while passing the order of suspension have mechanically relied on the Circular dated 10/8/2001 and no reasons have been assigned for putting the petitioner under suspension except for referring to the said Circular. In view thereof, the order Annex.8 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order Annex.8 dated 4/8/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. It would be open for the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with the law, as noticed hereinbefore.” 2. It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the cases aforesaid, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. 3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the State-respondents. 4. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.