1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5322/2008 Prakash Chandra v. R.S.R.T.C., Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th January, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Harish Purohit ] Mr. Vinod Choudhary] for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Lohra, for the respondents. .... The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh placed the petitioner under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings. The suspension aforesaid was revoked by an order dated 17.1.2008. It is relevant to note here that during the period of suspension an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the allegation that he demanded dowry from his daughter-in-law and a case in this regard for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC was registered against him. He was also arrested with regard to the case referred above. The inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner and, therefore, the order of suspension was revoked. By an another order dated 23.7.2008 the petitioner has again been placed under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. 2 The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is subjected to suspension on the same count for which he was placed under suspension earlier by order dated 6.8.2007. According to the petitioner his suspension under the order impugned is absolutely unwarranted. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences involving moral turpitude, therefore, in view of a Government of Rajasthan's Circular dated 10.8.2001 his suspension was necessary. The Government of Rajasthan's Circular dated 10.8.2001 provides that if a person is facing trial for involvement in the offences relating to dowry death and other offences involving moral turpitude, he should be placed under suspension immediately. Heard counsel for the parties. The Corporation is having power to place its employees under suspension as per Rule 35 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Standing Orders of 1965”), relevant portion of which reads as follows:- 3 “(vi)(a)Where on a complaint of misconduct against a workman, disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and the employer is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place the workman under suspension, he may do so by serving on the workman an order in writing to that effect. Such an order shall take effect immediately on delivery to the workman. It shall be accompanied by a charge-sheet explaining in details the reasons for such suspension and the workman shall be given an opportunity for defending himself.” From reading of sub-rule(vi)(a) of Rule 35 of the Standing Orders of 1965 makes it clear that the employer is empowered to place a workman under suspension on being satisfied that such suspension is necessary and desirable. In the instant matter even as per the respondents the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of certain directions given by the Government of Rajasthan under a circular dated 10.8.2001. The employer at its own has not considered necessity and desirability of placing the petitioner under suspension. The same was essential in view of the provisions of Rule 35(vi)(a) of the Standing Orders of 1965. It was all the more necessary in the present case as the petitioner was placed under suspension earlier vide the order dated 6.8.2007 and by proper application of mind the suspension was revoked. In such circumstances, the suspension of the 4 petitioner without examining necessity and desirability of the same is absolutely illegal. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order of suspension dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar stands quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.