Kamal Kishore vs Rsrtc And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8618 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35517]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7919/2017

Kamal Kishore S/o Shri Mukand Lal, Resident Of Manna Ki Badi, By Pass Road, Sursagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Director Administration, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Aburoad Depot, Aburoad.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aayushi Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit with Mr. Shashank Sharma

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

17/10/2023

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order of suspension dated 29.06.2017, which has been passed by

the respondent against him.

2. Ms. Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered

by the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court in the

case of Parbat Singh Vs. The Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1124/2017).

[2023:RJ-JD:35517] (2 of 3) [CW-7919/2017]

3. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a

position to dispute that the petitioner has been suspended without

a charge sheet being served.

4. In the case of Parbat Singh (supra), this Court has held

thus:-

"On exploring the law on the subject, this Court finds that in identical facts and circumstances, Jaipur Bench of this Court has allowed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7599/2015, Yogendra Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC, vide its order dated 11.01.2016 and quashed the suspension order with following observations:-

A perusal of para 35 reveals that an employee can be suspended against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending or if a criminal case is under investigation or trial. It is however, necessary to serve a copy of the order on the workman in writing and such an order would take effect immediately on its delivery. The order of suspension need to be accompanied by a charge-sheet explaining the reasons of suspension.

In view of the provisions aforesaid, the non-petitioner was under an obligation to accompany the copy of charge-sheet along with copy of order of suspension but it is missing in this case. The service of the charge-sheet is subsequent to the order of suspension thus, the impugned order has not been passed as per para 35 of the standing orders of 1965. Hence, it is quashed. It is moreso when order does not supply reasons required as per the provisions referred above. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid. The non- petitioner would, however, be at liberty to pass fresh order, if so wishes."

This Court has no hesitation in holding that the provision contained in Clause 35 (vi) (a) are mandatory and the same shall prevail over the provision contained in Clause (i) of the Order No.35, as it is a settled principle of interpretation that in the event of conflict between the two provisions of a statute, the one later in order shall prevail.

[2023:RJ-JD:35517] (3 of 3) [CW-7919/2017]

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that in wake of the express provisions contained in Clause (vi) (a) of the Standing Order No.35, the respondent-Corporation is required to serve a charge sheet and reasons for suspension along with order of suspension. Order of suspension dated 13.01.2017 challenged by the petitioner sans, the reasons of suspension and charge sheet is per se illegal, and violative of Clause (vi) (a) of the Standing Order.

As a fall out of the above enunciation, the order dated 13.01.2017 suspending the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

Needless it is, to observe that the Respondent- Corporation shall be free to suspend the petitioner, if at the time of serving the charge sheet, they deem it expedient to do so.

The writ petition is allowed, in terms aforesaid. Petitioner shall be entitled for full pay for the suspension period as a consequence of the annulment of the order dated 13.01.2017."

5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed.

6. The order of suspension dated 29.06.2017 is, hereby,

quashed and set aside.

7. Needless to observe that the respondent-Corporation shall be

free to suspend the petitioner, while serving the charge sheet, if

deemed expedient.

8. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 246-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)