HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5480/2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Daulatsinghpura, Post Pratapsingh Pura, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Transport Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Executive Director (Transport), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Matsyanagar Aagar, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/04/2025 1. By way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the respondents. 2. The first argument of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 25.03.2025 from the post of Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, without accompanying charge-sheet for the allegation of carrying passenger without tickets, hence suspension order stands violative to the Standing Orders of 1965 and is ex (2 of 2) [CW-5480/2025] facie illegal. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7599/2015 titled Yogendra Kumar Meena Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Chairman and Managing Director, however this Court is aware that the Clause 35(i) of Standing Orders of 1965 has been amended by virtue of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 vide order dated 01.06.2022 and it is not essential to accompany the charge-sheet with the order of suspension, rather 15 days’ time has been provided to the employer for serving the charge-sheet containing specific charges. 3. In view of above, the argument put-forth by counsel for the petitioner is misleading the court and such practice of counsel for the petitioner is deprecated. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. 5. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/10