A suspension order must be accompanied by a charge sheet explaining the reasons for suspension.

ORDER :

Reportable

1. In all these writ petitions, challenge has been made to the impugned suspension order dated 20.06.2022, on similar grounds and controversy involved therein is identical in nature, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for both parties, all writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order. Facts of SB Civil Writ Petition No.9220/2022, are being taken as main case.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were placed under suspension vide order dated 20.06.2022 (Ann.1) issued by the Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter for short “the RSRTC”) and the suspension order is not accompanied with charge sheet, giving out reasons of suspension, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law being in violation of Clause 35(vi) of the Standing Orders of 1965. Petitioners submit that in the impugned suspension order itself, it is contained that charge sheet shall be issued within a period of 7 days and the suspension order without accompanying with the charge sheet has been issued, taking resort of the office order dated 01.06.2022, whereby and whereunder Clause 35(i) of the Standing Orders of 1965, was amended. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that passing suspension order, by taking resort to office order dated 01.06.2022 is arbitrary and illegal as the office order dated 01.06.2022 has been challenged by the Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union (hereinafter for short “the Trade Union”) by way of filing an appeal on 14.06.2022 before the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, and therefore, by virtue of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter for short “the Act of 1946”), the amendment, carried out in Clause 35(i) of the Standing Orders of 1965 vide order dated 01.06.2022, cannot remain in operation on the date of issuance of the impugned suspension order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned suspension order dated 20.06.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside merely being not accompanied with the charge sheet and such issue is covered by the order dated 11.01.2016, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7599/2015 titled Yogendra Kumar Meena Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which has also been followed later in case of Karan Singh Dhayal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in SBCWP No.23744/2018 vide order dated 14.03.2019.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondents-RSRTC submitted two folds of arguments; (A) Charge sheet to petitioners was also issued on the same date of issuance of the impugned suspension order i.e. on 20.06.2022, but due to avoiding service of charge sheet by petitioners, the same could be served upon them by way of Chaspadagi on the next date i.e. on 21.06.2022. In addition, it has been submitted by way of additional affidavit dated 23.01.2023 that charge sheet was also sent through post on 20.06.2022 itself. (B) By virtue of order dated 01.06.2022, the Clause 35(i) of the Standing Orders of 1965, has been substituted in the manner that a competent authority may suspend a workman for any act or omission or misconduct, by an order in writing and a charge sheet shall be served within 15 days containing specific charges. Therefore, due to such amendment, even if the charge sheet was not accompanied with the impugned suspension order, the same remains valid by virtue of office order dated 01.06.2022. According to learned counsel for respondents, office order dated 01.06.2022 has come in operation w.e.f. 02.06.2022 in view of Clause 5(3) of the Act of 1946.

5. Learned counsel for respondents has further pointed out that the appeal preferred by the Trade Union assailing the office order dated 01.06.2022 before the Labour Court is though pending