Allowed

Ram Niwas Tyagi S/O Sh. Pritam Singh Tyagi v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2019CW/4246/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a suspension order dated 23.01.2018 passed against the petitioner by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation because it was served without the accompanying chargesheet, contrary to Standing Order 35(i). The Court relied on precedent to declare the order invalid.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order dated 23.01.2018 is set aside and the respondent Corporation is at liberty to pass a fresh order if need arises.

Ram Niwas Tyagi S/O Sh. Pritam Singh Tyagi Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2019

¶3

Ram Niwas Tyagi S/o Sh. Pritam Singh Tyagi, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Tyagi R/o Gram And Post Sadikpur, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Headquarters, Rsrtc Jaipur Through Its Managing Director

¶6

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Aditi Shekhawat, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Rajeev Surana, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vinayak Joshi, Advocate.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶10

24/04/2019

¶11

In the present writ petition challenge has been made to the suspension order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the respondentCorporation.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 23.01.2018 and the chargesheet to the petitioner was served on 26.01.2018. Counsel submitted that the suspension order is contrary to the Standing Order 35(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Standing Orders, 1965. Counsel submitted that as per the said Standing Order, the chargesheet is required to be accompanied with the suspension order and the respondents have failed to do so and as such the order of suspension is required to be declared bad in the eye of law.

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CW-4246/2019]

¶15

Counsel also submitted that this Court in catena of cases has taken a view that if the suspension order is not accompanied with the chargesheet, the suspension order is not valid and suspension order has accordingly been set aside.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the coordinate Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7599/2015 [Yogendra Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC] and order passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ PetitionNo.23744/2018 [Karan Singh Dhayal Vs. RSRTC & Ors.] decided on 14.03.2019.

¶17

Counsel for the respondent-Corporation Mr.Vinayak Joshi admits that the suspension order, if not accompanied with the chargesheet, has been set aside by this court in the case of Yogendra Kumar Meena (supra). Counsel further submits that respondents may at least be granted liberty to pass fresh order, if need arises.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

This Court finds that in the present case suspension order was not accompanied with the chargesheet when it was served to the petitioner and as per the view taken by the coordinate Bench, this Court has no option except to set aside the suspension order dated 23.01.2018.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the suspension order dated 23.01.2018 is set aside. However, the respondent-Corporation is at liberty to pass fresh order, if need arises.

¶21

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶22

DALPAT SINGH SOLANKI /8

Ram Niwas Tyagi S/O Sh. Pritam Singh Tyagi v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Tyagi S/O Sh. Pritam Singh Tyagi v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zinc Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti and Ors. Vs Hema Tank

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Shri Shivnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Mukesh Harijan S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ravishankar Saini S/O Shri Chiranji Lal Saini Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Jai Ram Choudhary Son of Shri Narayan Ram Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ravikant Saini S/O Shri Bhagwana Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan