Facts
The petitioner, a Deputy Manager (Plant), challenged his suspension dated 15.06.2026.
Source reference: paras. 2.8–3; pp. 5–15Earlier, a suspension order dated 21.11.2025 had been quashed because it was issued by the Managing Director without a demonstrated decision by the competent Board of Directors; the Court had granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Source reference: paras. 2.8–3; pp. 5–15The respondents stated that the Board of Directors decided to suspend the petitioner at its meeting on 12.06.2026, and that the Managing Director merely communicated that decision.
Source reference: paras. 2.8–3; pp. 5–15The petitioner alleged lack of authority, absence of a charge-sheet or adequate reasons, arbitrariness and mala fides
Source reference: paras. 4.1–4.11, 5.1–5.7; pp. 5–15Issues
Whether the suspension order dated 15.06.2026 was made by the competent authority under the applicable Regulations
Source reference: para. 7; p. 15Whether suspension could be ordered before issuance of a charge-sheet, and whether the order was otherwise arbitrary, mala fide or invalid for want of detailed reasons
Source reference: paras. 10–11.3; pp. 22–26Whether the asserted three-month limit on suspension invalidated the order at its inception
Source reference: para. 11; p. 24Law Applied
Regulations 6, 7 and 10 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Employees (Disciplinary Action and Appeals) Regulations, 1980, together with Schedule-I, governed penalties, the competent disciplinary authorities and suspension.
Source reference: paras. 8–8.4, 10; pp. 15–22Regulation 10 permits suspension where an inquiry into a grave charge is contemplated or pending; prior issuance of a charge-sheet is therefore not indispensable.
Source reference: paras. 8–8.4, 10; pp. 15–22Suspension is an interim measure, and judicial review under Article 226 ordinarily does not extend to reassessing the merits of the allegations, absent want of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or breach of the governing rules
Source reference: paras. 10.2, 11.3; pp. 23, 26The Court found the authorities relied on by the petitioner distinguishable on the facts and statutory context
Source reference: para. 11.4; pp. 26–27Reasoning
The petitioner’s post fell within the Schedule-I category for which the Board of Directors—not the Board of RCDF—was the relevant authority.
Source reference: paras. 8.3–8.7; pp. 20–22The record showed that the Board of Directors considered the matter and decided to suspend him on 12.06.2026; the Managing Director, as ex-officio Member Secretary, communicated that decision, rather than independently exercising the suspension power.
Source reference: paras. 8.3–8.7; pp. 20–22Because Regulation 10 permits suspension when an inquiry is contemplated, the absence of a charge-sheet did not invalidate the order.
Source reference: paras. 10–10.5; pp. 22–26The Court also noted that the present suspension concerned an alleged illegal appointment of Deepesh Lamba, distinct from the earlier charge-sheet concerning Pankaj Bhoothra, and found no sufficient material establishing mala fides or an extraneous purpose.
Source reference: paras. 10–10.5, 11.1–11.2; pp. 22–26The asserted three-month limit did not invalidate the initial order; any challenge to continuation or review could be taken before the competent authority.
Source reference: para. 11; p. 24Holding
The Court held that the suspension was based on a decision of the competent Board of Directors, made under the adopted 1980 Regulations, and disclosed no jurisdictional error, arbitrariness or mala fides warranting interference.
It dismissed the writ petition and left the suspension order dated 15.06.2026 undisturbed, clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the disciplinary proceedings.
Source reference: paras. 11.5–11.8; pp. 26–28Original Court PDF
LAL CHAND BALAIvsSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
