DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) The petitioner, a conductor in the Respondent Corporation appointed vide order dated 04.08.1986, has impugned the order dated 13.01.2017, whereby he has been placed under suspension, under contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry.
(2.) Though there are various grounds for which, the order impugned has been assailed, but during the course of arguments, Mr. Rajesh Punia confined the challenge to the order impugned within the confines of observance and requirement of order No.35 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred as "the Standing Order").
(3.) Mr. Punia inviting attention of this Court towards Clause (vi) (a) of the Standing Order No.35 contended that if the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'Corporation') thinks it necessary to place a Workman under suspension, it may do so by an order in writing to such effect, however, such order of suspension should be accompanied with a charge sheet, explaining the reasons for such suspension. Adverting to the facts of the present case he contended that the petitioner has been suspended by way of the order under consideration, issued on 13.01.2017, however, neither any charge sheet was enclosed, nor any reasons necessitating such suspension were contained therein. Developing his argument further, he submitted that not only till the date of filing of the present writ petition, even till today (the date of hearing), the respondents have not served any charge sheet upon the petitioner. In light of these facts he contended that the order placing the petitioner under suspension is per se illegal, contrary to Clause (vi) (a) of the Standing Order No.35 of the Standing Order of 1965.;