The necessity for quasi-judicial bodies to provide reasons for their decisions and ensure fair hearing is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice.

ORDER

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the learned Tribunal') whereby, the suspension order dated 04.10.2021 passed in respect of respondent no.1/appellant (for brevity, 'the appellant') has been stayed and the petitioners have been directed to let her work at her prior place of posting where she was posted by the competent authority.

2. The facts in brief are that vide order dated 04.10.2021, the appellant, a Tehsildar posted at Sanganer, District Jaipur, was placed under suspension by the District Collector, Jaipur, in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. It was directed therein that during the period of suspension, her headquarter shall remain at the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, 'the BOR')- The validity of the aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by way of an appeal no.5142/2021 before the learned Tribunal, which has, vide order impugned dated 26.10.2021, granted ad-interim relief to her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that order of the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction as suspension is not covered under 'service conditions' as enumerated in Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976')- Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06.01.1998 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.777/1996, State Insurance & GPF Department, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and Ors., learned counsel submitted that therein, while considering the case of termination simplicitor of an employee, it was held that the learned Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involving termination simplicitor as it was not covered under any of the Clauses of Section 2(f) of the Act.

4. Shri Akshay Sharma submitted that the appellant has an alternative remedy against the order of suspension under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1958') and Section 4(A) of the Act of 1976 bars entertainment of any appeal without first exhausting the alternative remedy. He submitted that on this count also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel submitted that contention of the appellant that the order of suspension dated 04.10.2021 passed by the District Collector was without jurisdiction as her appointing authority happens to be BOR, is not tenable in view of its ratification by the BOR vide its order dated even. He submitted that their Lordships have held in case of National Institute of Technology and Ors. Vs. Pannalal Choudhary and Ors.: AIR 2015 SCC 2846 that once an order of an incompetent authority is ratified by the competent authority, the invalidity attached with the order goes.

6. He submitted that despite entering into a caveat, neither name of the learned counsel for the petitioners was reflected in the cause list dated 26.10.2021 nor, a copy of the appeal was furnished nor, any opportunity of hearing was afforded although, the order records his presence which is factually incorrect as is apparent from its later part. Drawing attention of this Court towards Rule 37 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1976'), learned counsel submitted that once the petitioners have entered into a caveat before the learned Tribunal, it was enjoined upon it to have granted an opportunity of hearing to them before passing any interlocutory order. Learned counsel submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Hari Ram Vs. Ratanlal: AIR 1980 Raj 82, while dealing with an identical situation wherein an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner without affording the respondent-caveator an opportunity of hearing, recalled the orde