Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3127 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 17 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/010164] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14496/2018 Suresh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, Village Post Hariyadhana, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Through Its General Manager.

2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur.

3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Nagaur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Sharma for Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 17/04/2023 I.A.No.01/2023:-

For the reason stated, the application is allowed. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14496/2018:-

1. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure.8) is liable to be set aside as the disciplinary enquiry is contrary to settled canons of law.

2. He argued that it was required of the Enquiry Officer to have examined departmental witnesses and the documentary evidence (Downloaded on 17/04/2023 at 11:16:30 PM) [2023/RJJD/010164] (2 of 3) [CW-14496/2018] and records whereas the Enquiry Officer in the case in hands has recorded a finding and drawn conclusion against the petitioner only because he did not turn up before him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 15.01.2015 rendered in the case of Harak Chand Dangi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4459/2001.

4. Mr. Shashank Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, firstly, raised an objection that though the petitioner had an alternative remedy against the order dated 31.07.2018 he did not avail and therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the face of existence alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel submitted that even if the order impugned is held to be illegal for not having followed the procedure prescribed under law, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Enquiry Officer for decision afresh in accordance with law.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned with a direction to conduct the enquiry afresh.

7. However, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the meagre amount of penalty that has been imposed upon the petitioner, i.e. Rs.5,550/- and the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, on instruction of petitioner, submitted that the petitioner would forego his right to challenge the impugned order given the fact that petitioner's entire retiral dues have been withheld by the (Downloaded on 17/04/2023 at 11:16:30 PM) [2023/RJJD/010164] (3 of 3) [CW-14496/2018] respondents. He prayed in alternative that a direction to the respondent - Corporation be issued for making payment of entire retirement dues.

8. In view of the aforesaid and without adjudicating or pronouncing upon the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 31.07.2018 impugned in the present writ petition, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

9. The writ petition is also disposed of in light of the judgment in case of Daulat Ram (supra) with the same directions.

10. The above order shall be subject to following conditions:-

(i) While making the payment to the petitioner, respondent- Corporation shall take into account the corresponding seniority (on the basis of date of retirement) of all the retired employees.
(ii) In case, the respondents find petitioner's case as emergent, payment may be made to him, out of the seniority in terms of the order dated 30.03.2017, passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.9127/2016.
(iii) The respondents may defer payment of interest of gratuity for the time being, as observed in the proceedings dated 17.01.2020 in SBWCP No.992/2018.

11. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 36-akansha/-

(Downloaded on 17/04/2023 at 11:16:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)