Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
SUBE KHAN SON OF SHRI HAMID KHAN – Appellant
Versus
RAJASTHAN TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent
CW/15376/2021
The Managing Director of RTDC has the authority to suspend an employee under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980 in contemplation of a departmental inquiry.
Headnote:
SUSPENSION - RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1980 - Rule 13(1)(a) - Suspension of employee - Contemplation of departmental inquiry - Managing Director's authority to suspend - Office order dated 23.07.2001 - Interpretation and application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (RTDC), was placed under suspension under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (the Rules of 1980) in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. The petitioner challenged the suspension order and a show-cause notice issued to him, arguing that the Managing Director did not have the authority to suspend him and that the suspension was not in accordance with the Rules of 1980.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition, holding that the Managing Director had the authority to suspend the petitioner under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980 and that the suspension was in accordance with the Rules of 1980.
Issues: 1. Whether the Managing Director of RTDC had the authority to suspend the petitioner under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980?2. Whether the suspension of the petitioner was in accordance with the Rules of 1980?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980 empowers the appointing authority or disciplinary authority to place an employee under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against the employee is contemplated or is pending.2. The Managing Director of RTDC is the disciplinary authority and has been vested with full power to inflict minor/major penalty upon the employees under the office order dated 23.07.2001.3. Therefore, the Managing Director had the authority to suspend the petitioner under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the suspension of the petitioner.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15376/2021
Sube Khan Son Of Shri Hamid Khan, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of 476, Shivji Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Rajasthan Tourism Corporation Ltd., Through Its
Managing Director, Paryatan Bhawan, Khasa Kothi, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2.
Executive Director, Rajasthan Tourism Corporation Ltd.,
Paryatan Bhawan, Khasa Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Neeraj Batra through VC
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
11/01/2022
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the order dated 15.12.2021 whereby the petitioner has
been placed under suspension as also the notice dated 07.12.2021
whereby the petitioner has been required to show cause as to why
he did not join at Headquarter Bikaner during the period of
suspension.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner, working as Office
Assistant but holding the charge of General Manager (Land Bank)
and General Manager (Legal), was placed under suspension in
contemplation of a departmental inquiry vide order dated
14.10.2021. The petitioner assailed its validity by way of a writ
petition No.12124/2021. During pendency of the writ petition, vide
(2 of 4)
[CW-15376/2021]
order dated 06.12.2021, the order of suspension was withdrawn
on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, vide notice dated
07.12.2021, the petitioner has been required to show cause as to
why he did not join at Headquarter Bikaner despite direction in the
suspension order dated 14.10.2021. Vide order dated 15.12.2021,
the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule
13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation
Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for
brevity, “the Rules of 1980”) in contemplation of a departmental
inquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this
Court towards the office order dated 23.07.2001 issued by the
Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., submitted that
therein, the Managing Director has not been vested with any
power to place an employee under suspension and hence, the
order dated 15.12.2021 is without jurisdiction. He further
submitted that he could have been placed under suspension only
during pendency of departmental inquiry as envisaged under Rule
13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980. Qua show cause notice dated
07.12.2021, learned counsel submitted that once the order of
suspension dated 14.10.2021 was withdrawn, there was no
occasion for the respondents to have issued this notice. He,
therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order
dated 15.12.2021 as also the show cause notice dated 07.12.2021
be quashed and set aside.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
By way of writ petition No.12124/2021, the petitioner has
assailed the legality and validity of the suspension order dated
(3 of 4)
[CW-15376/2021]
14.10.2021 passed by the State Government on the ground of its
competence. The order dated 14.10.2021 was withdrawn vide
order dated 06.12.2021 by the State Government on the ground
of its jurisdiction. Thereafter, vide order impugned dated
15.12.2021, the petitioner has been placed under suspension
under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1980 in contemplation of a
departmental inquiry. Rule 13(1)(a) provides as under:
“
”Rule 13 circumstances under which suspension
may be ordered.
(1) the appointing authority or disciplinary
authority may place the employee under
suspension.
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is
contemplated or is pending.”
Thus, under Rule 13(1)(a), an employee can be placed under
suspension not only when a disci
