Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karan Singh Chundawat vs Managing Director, Rajasthan State ... on 6 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:53165]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7896/2022
Karan Singh Chundawat S/o Late Shri Madan Singh, Aged About
45 Years, Through Rajasthan Roadways Mazdoor Congress,
Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur, R/o Sector 14, House
No.214, Govardhan Vilas, Housing Board, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Head Office Jaipur, Through Chief Manager
RSRTC, Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur Depot.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Central
Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur Depot.
3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Central
Bus Stand, Dungarpur.
4. Deputy General Manager (Statistics) & Authorised
Appellate Officer, RSRTC Head Office Jaipur, Through Chief
Manager RSRTC, Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udiapur
Depot.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reserved on : 27/08/2024
Pronounced on : 06/01/2025
BY THE COURT :-
1. By way of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner essentially implores this Court to direct the respondent-RSRTC to grant him the benefit of annual increment from the actual due date, which has been withheld for two years with cumulative effect due to his being found guilty of remaining absent from duty for 106 days without any prior information.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (2 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Body Fitter (Artisan Grade-III) in respondent-RSRTC on compassionate ground vide its order dated 17.03.1997 and after successfully completing two years probation period, his services were regularized leading to his joining on 10.07.2001. In the year 2007, he remained absent from his duties on various dates between 01.02.2007 and 29.09.2007 due to his ill health and information in this regard was conveyed verbally to the authority at the first instance of respondent-RSRTC. During that period, whenever he resumed his duties, he submitted all the medical certificates, which were duly accepted by the authority at the first instance.
2.1. Subsequently, when the petitioner did not get the benefit of Selection Pay Scale even after completing 9 years of service, he requested the respondent-RSRTC for it and then it was informed to him that his claim could not be considered owing to the pendency of charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-1) leveling charges against him for remaining absent from duties between 01.02.2007 and 15.10.2007 which resulted in disruption of technical work in the workshop. The said charge-sheet was served upon him for the first time in the year 2015, to which he filed reply on 19.06.2015 (Annexure-2) specifically stating therein that he had verbally informed the authority at the first instance of the respondent-RSRTC about his ailment and submitted all the relevant medical certificates while resuming the duties during that period; nevertheless, he resubmitted the copies of those documents along with his reply.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (3 of 8) [CW-7896/2022] 2.2. In pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-1) pertains to the year 2007, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the first time in the year 2015 and as a result of which, vide inquiry report dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-3), he was found guilty of the charges because the medical certificates submitted by him confirmed his absence from duty due to ailment, but he was duty bound to provide prior information, which he failed to do. Based on the aforesaid inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-RSRTC vide order dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure-4) imposed penalty under Order 36(ii) of the Rajasthan State Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Order of 1965') and withheld the petitioner's three years' annual increment with cumulative effect. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 03.02.2016 (Anneuxre-4), the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure-5) before the Appellate Authority of respondent-RSRTC, who vide order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) partly allowed the appeal and modified the penalty by reducing the period of withholding the annual increment with cumulative effect from three years to two years.
2.4. The petitioner challenged the order of appellate authority dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) before the learned Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court') raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by submitting the statement of claim. After recording evidence and hearing both the (Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53165] (4 of 8) [CW-7896/2022] parties, the learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-12) passed in Case No.41/2017 L.C.R. upheld the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) passed by the Appellate Authority of the respondent-RSRTC and concluded that the modification made by it in reducing the penalty of withholding the annual increment with cumulative effect for three years to two years was proper and valid. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Besides the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned labour court has overlooked the fact that the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-1) was not served upon the petitioner until the year 2015; however, it was first time served upon him when he requested the respondent-RSRTC to grant him the benefit of Selection Pay Scale after completing more than 9 years of service. It is further submitted that the respondent-RSRTC never conducted any inquiry nor issued any notice to the petitioner regarding his absence from duty and it was only in the year 2015, the Inquiry Officer was appointed and as such there was a delay of 8 years in initiating the departmental proceedings against him, for which, he cannot be made scapegoat for this delay. Furthermore, no explanation has been given by the respondent-RSRTC for such lapse on its part. Thus, on this count alone the petitioner is entitled to be granted benefit of annual increment from the actual due date and as a consequence of which, granted benefit of Selection Pay Scale.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings and the penalty so imposed are (Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53165] (5 of 8) [CW-7896/2022] completely misguided, flawed and amiss because the authority at the first instance, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority completely disregarded the medical certificates provided by the petitioner, based on which, he was allowed to join his duties after availing the medical leave. Furthermore, the aforesaid authorities erroneously concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide prior information of his absence and ailment; whereas, in fact, he had conveyed this verbally to the authority at the first instance. Therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are vitiated and there remains no justifiable cause to impose disproportionate penalty, as he was not absent willfully and prior information was communicated verbally.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the imposition of penalty of withholding the annual increments with cumulative effect is contrary to the provisions contained under Order 36(ii) of the Orders of 1965 as it only provides for withholding of increment or promotion and does not provide for withholding the same with cumulative effect. In such circumstances, the order under assail is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefit of annual increment from the actual due date including all the consequential benefits. 3.3. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 15.02.2012 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 178, the order dated 16.09.208 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Ghan Shyam Sharma Vs. (Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53165] (6 of 8) [CW-7896/2022] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. (SBCWP No.5138/2001), the order dated 18.03.2021 rendered by another Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. (SBCWP No.18024/2012) and subsequent order dated 23.03.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (DBSAW No.597/2021).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC submits that the petitioner neither informed about his absence and ailment in advance to the authority at the first instance nor provide any medical certificates to it while resuming his duties following the prolonged absence. However, the medical certificates were provided by him for the first time before the Inquiry Officer and that were duly considered by the Appellate Authority leading to the reduction of the penalty period from three years to two years. Thus, the interference of this Court is not required and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC submits that due to long absence of petitioner without prior information, the technical work assigned to him in the workshop of the respondent-RSRTC got disrupted. Thus, the penalty imposed upon him is just and proper. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (7 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
6. Heard learned counsel for the petition and perused the material as made available to this Court.
7. The facts are undisputed that the petitioner remained absent for long period without prior information and due to which, the technical work of workshop of respondent-RSRTC was interrupted.
7.1. It is noticed that the petitioner, before the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Labour Court, has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for his prolonged absence and to prove that he had informed about it in advance to the authority at first instance.
7.2. It is also noticed that the petitioner did not disclose anywhere as to what ailment he was suffering that caused him to remain absent from duty for such a long period. 7.3. The petitioner has neither given any details regarding his ailment nor provided any medical certificates, prescription of doctor, pathology report, radiology report and hospital record in support of his ailment before this Court; even when asked by this Court during the course of arguments.
7.4. The defence raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay in serving the charge-sheet and in initiating the inquiry against him, is of no help because the delay does not impact the charge levelled against him and the outcome of the inquiry.
7.5. It is observed that the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have dealt with all the grounds raised by the petitioner and, thereafter, charges were (Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53165] (8 of 8) [CW-7896/2022] framed and penalty was imposed upon him. It is also observed that the Appellate Authority already took a lenient view while considering the ailment of the petitioner and reduce the duration of penalty from three years to two years. After hearing both the parties, recording evidence and examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the order of Appellate Authority, the learned Labour Court discussed on the controversy in detail and upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty from three years to two years, in which, I see no reason to interfere.
8. In this view of the matter, this Court concurs with the finding made in the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) passed by the Appellate Authority of respondent-RSRTC, which was upheld by the learned Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur vide impugned award dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-12) passed in Case No.41/2017 L.C.R. Consequently, the aforementioned orders are hereby confirmed and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of withholding the annual increment for two years with cumulative effect is deemed justified.
9. Hence, no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. No order as to cost.
11. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J Abhishek Kumar S.No.234 (Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)