Kaptan Singh S/O Sh. Khayali Ram vs The Rajasthan State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3587 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13611/2019
Kaptan Singh S/o Sh. Khayali Ram, Aged About 51 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o Nagladhani, Post Baramai (Visavar), Tehsil Sadabad,
District Hathras (U.p.) At Present Working As Conductor, Rsrtc
Depot Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The     Rajasthan      State       Road       Transport     Corporation,
       Parivahan Bhawan, Headquarters, Rsrtc Jaipur Through
       Its Managing Director
2.     Chief    Manager,        Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
       Corporation, Dholpur Depot, Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Taylor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

12/08/2021

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved

in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Gopal Prasad

Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2988/2019), wherein on 17.05.2019

following order was passed:-

"The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner has also prayed for release of ¾ of the subsistence allowance after three months from the date of suspension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned suspension order dated 13.07.2018 was issued in most

(2 of 3)

arbitrary and illegal manner and since the petitioner was not issued charge-sheet along with suspension order, same is not sustainable in view of para 35(iv) (a) of the Standing Order, 1965. By this Court in SBCWP No.23744/2018 [Karan Singh Dhayal Vs. RSRTC & Ors.]. Learned counsel has submitted that the if the suspension order was issued without charge-sheet as such it is required to be set-aside.

Mr. Vinayak Joshi, counsel for the RSRCT has submitted that the view taken this Court in the case of Karan Singh Dhayal (supra) is based on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in SBCWP No.7599/2015 (Yogenda Kumar Meena Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation).

Considering the facts of the case, this Court finds that the impugned suspension order placing the petitioner under suspension was not accompanied with the charge-sheet and as such the same is required to be set-aside. This Court has already decided the similar issue in the case of Karan Singh Dhayal (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:-

"This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. The present controversy is in respect of the charge-sheet being issued to the petitioner of suspension order, this Court follows the view which is taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Yogendra Kumar Meena (supra) and Mohallal Gurjar (supra).

However, this Court feels that in a given case the interpretation of Para-35 of Standing Order, 1965 is required to be made in the eventuality where the person is placed under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry or further if a person is to be placed under suspension on account his involvement in criminal offence. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 15.10.2018 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed."

This Court finds that in the present case the charge-sheet was issued subsequently on

(3 of 3)

31.07.2018 and the same cannot said to be consonance with the para 35 (iv) (a) of the Standing Orders, 1965.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the suspension order dated 13.07.2018 is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, if so advised.

The petitioner would be entitled to receive emoluments on account of suspension order quashed and set aside and the compliance of order may be made within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not

disputed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands

disposed of in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the matter of Gopal Prasad Sharma (supra).

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra Pratap Singh/167

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)