Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kashi Ram vs The Rajasthan State Road ... on 12 December, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15367/2022

Kulvindra Singh S/o Makhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot. District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Officer (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15392/2022 Brijesh Kumar Dixit S/o Sh. Radharaman, Aged About 37 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15394/2022 Amrit Pal Singh S/o Dheer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan

(2 of 7) [CW-15367/2022]

State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15436/2022 Manish S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 28 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot, District - Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15439/2022 Jaspreet Singh S/o Sh. Harful Singh, Aged About 26 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15446/2022 Vishnu Kumar Jangid S/o Sh. Radheshyam, Aged About 37 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot, District - Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,

(3 of 7) [CW-15367/2022]

Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15448/2022 Radha Krishan S/o Sh. Swarn Singh, Aged About 45 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot. District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15460/2022 Dilip Chand S/o Sh. Rampratap, Aged About 50 Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Conductor Posted At R.s.r.t.c. Sri Ganganagar Depot. District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10955/2022

Kashi Ram S/o Shri Bhanwar lal, aged 42 years, resident of 103-G, Gali No.9, 3E Chhoti, SSB Road, Sri Ganganagar. At present working on the post of Conductor posted at R.S.R.T.C Sri Ganganagar Depot.

                               (4 of 7)                      [CW-15367/2022]


                                                          ----- Petitioner
                            Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, ParivahanMarg, Jaipur through its Chairman and Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, ParivahanMarg, Jaipur.

3. Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot District Sri Ganganagar.

----- Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shardul Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

12/12/2022

1. By way of present writ petitions, petitioners have

challenged penalty imposed upon them which has been

levied on the ground that the revenue generated by the

petitioners (conductors) is comparatively lesser than the

revenue generated by other conductors.

2. Mr. Shardul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners

relied upon judgment dated 18.07.2013, passed by Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition

No.2941/2010 (Leela Dhar Vs. Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation) and submitted that the controversy

involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment in

the case of Leela Dhar (supra).

3. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent

- Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the

(5 of 7) [CW-15367/2022]

penalty has been imposed as per the prevailing standing

order and the petitioners being employee of the

Corporation cannot challenge such order, unless the

standing order is challenged.

4. It is also asserted by learned counsel that the

standing order has been issued in order to ensure sufficient

revenue is generated and the same is in public interest.

5. In the case of Leela Dhar (supra), this Court has held

thus:-

"Indisputably, the petitioner was charge sheeted for collecting less revenue while discharging duty on various Bus schedules during the period 1.4.02 to 28.2.05. The charge sheet issued does not disclose the basis for calculation of the average income. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was apprised about the less revenue collection during the aforesaid period at least at the end of each year. In considered opinion of this court, the petitioner was absolutely justified in submitting that had he been apprised about the collection of revenue below average earlier, he would have explained the factual position effectively. There is no allegation levelled against the petitioner that though the passengers load on the various routes while he was discharging duties as per the Bus schedules was more yet, he did not made efforts for motivating the commuter public to travel in the Corporation buses. In absence of any allegation regarding the lapses/negligence on the part of the petitioner

(6 of 7) [CW-15367/2022]

in generating the revenue, he cannot be held liable for collecting the revenue below average.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the charge sheet explaining that why the allegations levelled against him do not constitute 'misconduct' within the meaning of clause 34 of the Standing Orders, 1963. However, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority reveals that the stand of the petitioner has simply not been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority. The findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority are not supported by reasons. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority has merely recorded its ipse dixit without considering the record of enquiry and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non speaking order and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law."

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this

Court is of the view that the respondents have wrongly

inflicted penalty upon the petitioners. Generation of

revenue is dependent upon a series of factors for which, the

petitioners being conductors cannot be held solely

responsible.

7. Hence, following the law laid down in the case of Leela

Dhar (supra), the present petitions are also allowed. The

(7 of 7) [CW-15367/2022]

impugned orders in each of the writ petitions are hereby

quashed.

8. The stay applications also stand disposed of