Authorized Disciplinary ... vs Rajendra Singh S/O Sh. Roop Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4061 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 722/2021

                                        IN

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3205/2021

Authorized    Disciplinary        Authority,        Rajasthan      State   Road
Transport Corporation, Head Quarter, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Roop Singh, Ex Driver Resident Of
Village And Post Office Kankroli, Police Station, Mansukhpura,
District Agra U.p.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Shri Satish Chandra Mittal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment

26/08/2021

(PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL):

The unsuccessful petitioner has preferred this intra court

appeal against the order dated 30.06.2021 whereby the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed against the order

dated 16.7.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur

rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 33(2)

(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity-`the Act of

1947').

The facts in brief are that the respondent herein, working as

Driver with the appellant-corporation, was served with a charge

sheet dated 14.11.1990 alleging therein that on account of his

(2 of 3) [SAW-722/2021]

rash and negligent driving on 18.9.1989, a lady suffered grievous

injuries and damage of Rs.5,000 was caused to the bus. After

conducting domestic enquiry, vide order dated 10.9.1996, the

authorised disciplinary authority terminated service of the

respondent. In view of pendency of general litigation no.92/1986

before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, an application under Section

33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was moved before the learned Tribunal

which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2019. As stated

hereinabove, challenge to the aforesaid order did not find favour

with the learned Single Judge.

Assailing the impugned order dated 30.6.2021, learned

counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge

failed to appreciate that once the enquiry was found to be fair by

the Industrial Tribunal, it was required to see only whether

charges were prima facie proved against the concerned workman

on the basis of evidence recorded in the enquiry; but, the learned

Tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction, disapproved the permission

acting as an appellate authority. He submitted that the

Corporation was able to establish charge against the respondent

on the basis of evidence available on record and hence, the order

dated 30.6.2021 be quashed and the writ petition be allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record.

The learned Single Judge as well as learned Tribunal have

recorded a concurrent finding that none of the two departmental

witnesses examined by the Corporation in support of charge, was

an eye witness and their testimony was based on FIR lodged

against the respondent which is not substantive piece of evidence.

We have also examined the statements of the two witnesses and

(3 of 3) [SAW-722/2021]

find no perversity in the findings so recorded. On examination of

the order dated 10.9.1996 passed by the authorised disciplinary

authority, we find that the same is based on the findings recorded

by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the claim petition

arising out of the accident in question. The approach of the

authorised disciplinary authority was fallacious as the findings of

the learned MACT could not have been made basis for proving a

charge in a domestic enquiry. Even otherwise also, a perusal of

the award dated 22.5.1993 passed by the learned MACT reveals

that the Corporation has taken a categorical stand therein that the

accident in question did not occur on account of rash and

negligent driving of the respondent. The learned Tribunal has also

recorded a finding that the respondent was acquitted in the

criminal case arising out of accident in question. In these

circumstances, this Court is satisfied that there was no material on

record to prove the change against the respondent even prima

facie and the learned Single Judge did not err in dismissing the

writ petition. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant-

corporation has admitted during the course of arguments that the

respondent has since retired on attaining the age of

superannuation and he has already been paid all the service

benefit due.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J

RAVI SHARMA /6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)