The Rajasthan High Court has granted major interim relief to RAS officer and former SDM Pinky Meena by staying her suspension order that had remained in force since January 2021 in connection with an alleged ₹10 lakh bribery case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that “suspension is not a punishment, but only a temporary and preventive measure,” while hearing Meena’s petition challenging the prolonged suspension.

The Court also noted that similar relief had already been granted to former Dausa SDM Pushkar Kumar Mittal, who faced identical allegations in the same case. Relying on the principle of equality, the Court held that Pinky Meena should not be denied similar treatment.

Pinky Meena was suspended on January 15, 2021 after the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered an FIR against her in an alleged bribery case involving ₹10 lakh.

Pushkar Kumar Mittal was also suspended in connection with the same matter. Both officers were booked under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vipul Singhvi argued that Meena had remained under suspension for more than four-and-a-half years, while the departmental charge sheet was issued only on December 30, 2025.

The petition further stated that although prosecution sanction and criminal charges had already been approved, the trial had seen little progress, making indefinite suspension unjustified.

The State informed the Court that the Review Committee, in its meeting held on December 16, 2025, had decided not to revoke Meena’s suspension.

However, the High Court criticized the committee for failing to record any concrete reasons to justify the continuation of suspension. The Court observed that mechanically extending suspension without fresh circumstances or progress in the case could not be sustained.

“Suspension Has Become Punitive”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated that prolonged suspension without adequate justification is impermissible.

The Court observed that the purpose of suspension is only to ensure a fair investigation, but in Pinky Meena’s case, it had effectively assumed a punitive character.

It further held that once relief had already been granted to Pushkar Kumar Mittal in identical circumstances, there was no justification for adopting a different approach in Meena’s case.

In its order, the High Court emphasized that both Pinky Meena and Pushkar Kumar Mittal were suspended on the same day in the same case. Therefore, denying similar relief to one officer while granting it to another would violate the constitutional principle of equality.

The Court accordingly stayed the suspension order against Pinky Meena and directed that her petition be listed along with Pushkar Kumar Mittal’s pending matter for final hearing.