JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned suspension order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure-8), passed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Excise Inspector and was also given additional charge of Circle, Chohtan upto 03.01.2022. 2.1. Thereafter on 27.01.2022, one Pata Ram (Liquor Shop License holder) lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Chowki Barmer on 27.01.2022 alleging demand of illegal gratification. On the basis of the said complaint, the ACB organized trap on 28.01.2022 and the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-through PhonePe (online payment platform), whereupon, an FIR bearing no. 26/2022 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 2018 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide order 11.02.2022 placed the petitioner under suspension, against which, the petitioner preferred a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2978/2022) before this Hon’ble Court, wherein on 24.02.2022, an interim stay order was passed, with liberty to the respondents to pass orders in accordance with the directions as contained in the order passed in Mumtaj Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.799/2012, decided on 27.08.2012). 2.3. The petitioner accordingly resumed his duties, however, the respondents in exercise of power under Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control, & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1958) again placed the petitioner under suspension with retrospective effect from 28.01.2022. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.799/2012, decided on 27.08.2012). 2.3. The petitioner accordingly resumed his duties, however, the respondents in exercise of power under Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control, & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1958) again placed the petitioner under suspension with retrospective effect from 28.01.2022. The petitioner again preferred a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 6759/2022) before this Hon’ble Court, wherein also, an interim stay order was passed on 10.05.2022. Thereafter, upon an order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties. 2.4. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 05.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules 1958, whereupon the petitioner preferred another writ petition (S.B.CW.P. No.6938/2023) before this Hon’ble Court, which is pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court. 2.5. The respondents vide order 10.05.2023 again placed the petitioner under suspension, on basis of the prosecution sanction so granted, and the proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rules 1958 was also initiated against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ex facie, the impugned suspension order itself has been passed in an erroneous manner and without due application of mind. It was further submitted that the impugned suspension order was passed on the basis of a false & frivolous FIR, and thus, the prosecution sanction so obtained was also of no avail. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the suspension is not a punishment but it is required to be effected with due caution and vigilance and a public servant cannot be placed under the suspension without due application of mind. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension thrice; earlier suspension orders were stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide interim orders passed in the aforementioned writ petitions, and therefore, the impugned suspension order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court: (a) Hema Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2687/2023, decided on 23.02.2023); (b) Mohan Ram Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1984/2023, decided on 03.02.2023) and; (c) Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2687/2023, decided on 23.02.2023); (b) Mohan Ram Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1984/2023, decided on 03.02.2023) and; (c) Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10253/2022, decided on 06.02.2023) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the charge sheet dated 05.05.2023 was issued against the petitioner and the requisite prosecution sanction was also obtained in the present case. The charge sheet was also challenged before this Hon’ble Court, but no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. 4.1. It was further submitted that the impugned order was passed in light of the circular dated 07.07.2010 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby it has been directed to suspend a public servant in cases relating to corruption. 4.2. It was also submitted that even as per the circular dated 22.03.2023 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, pertaining to suspended public servant(s), the entire action of the respondents was justified in law. 4.3. It was further submitted that the impugned suspension order was passed by the respondent after duly following the procedure provided under the law, and therefore, the impugned order, which has been passed, after filing of the charge sheet and after obtaining the requisite prosecution sanction, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the orders cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector, and thereafter, a complaint was received against the petitioner pertaining to demand of illegal gratification; whereupon, the ACB organized a trap, during course of which, the petitioner was caught red-handed, while accepting the amount of illegal gratification; consequently, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, the aforementioned suspension orders were passed against the petitioner, which were stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide the aforementioned interim orders passed in the above-mentioned writ petitions. 7. This Court further observes that after filing of the charge sheet and grant of the prosecution sanction, the respondents passed the impugned suspension order, while exercising the power under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. 8. 7. This Court further observes that after filing of the charge sheet and grant of the prosecution sanction, the respondents passed the impugned suspension order, while exercising the power under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. 8. This Court also observes that a detailed charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the alleged offences and the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rule 1958 was also initiated against him. This Court further observes that the effect and operation of the initial suspension order so passed, was stayed by this Hon’ble Court because the respondents did not duly follow the prescribed procedure, but the impugned suspension order was passed by the respondents, after duly following the procedure so prescribed. 9. This Court also observes that the impugned suspension order was passed after duly obtaining the prosecution sanction, charge sheet was filed and the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rule 1958 was initiated against the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned suspension order passed by the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 10. The orders cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.