Rawal Ram vs Rsrtc And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2646 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12306/2016 Rawal Ram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, aged about 49 years, R/o Kalu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Executive Director (Transport), RSRTC, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Chief Manager, RSRTC Ajmer Depot, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Chief Manager, RSRTC Phalodi Depot, Phalodi, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Avinash Acharya
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sunil Purohit


             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                                       Order

15/02/2022

The present petition has been filed aggrieved of the order

dated 23.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 (disciplinary

authority) whereby, the petitioner had been held to be guilty and

three penalties as per law have been imposed on him, which reads

as under :

"(1) fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns"k 1965 ds /kkjk 36 ¼2½ ds ,d okf'kZd osru o`f) vlap;h izHkko ls [Without Cummulative Effect] jksdrk gwWA (2) fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns"k 1965 dh /kkjk 36 ¼3½ ds rgr buds osru ls 10][email protected]& ¼nl gtkj :i;s½ olwyh ds vkns"k nsrk gwWA (3) fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns"k 1965 dh /kkjk 36 ¼5½ ds rgr fuyEcu dky dk "ks'k osru fuxe fgr esa tIr djrk gWwA (4) ,e , lh Vh izdj.k esa vyx ls dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA"

The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner

in the present petition is that before concluding the disciplinary

proceedings, disciplinary authority did not serve upon him the

(2 of 4) [CW-12306/2016]

reasons for disagreement from the report of the Inquiry Officer,

which ought to have been communicated to him. Counsel

submitted that in absence of the reasons of disagreement being

communicated to him, he was prevented from raising his defence

and therefore, the same amounted to a specific breach of

principles of natural justice. Counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Apex

Court judgment passed in S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National

Bank & Ors. ; Civil Appeal No.5128/2013 decided on 4 July,

2013 reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251.

Per contra, Counsel for the respondents firstly raised a

preliminary objection to the effect that against the order passed

by the disciplinary authority, an appeal in terms of Clause 36 of

the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop

Employees Standing Order, 1965 (for short, "Standing Order,

1965") governing the services of the employees lies before the

appellate authority and therefore, the writ petition is not

maintainable.

So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner

regarding the non-communication of the reasons of disagreement

is concerned, counsel for the respondents could not forcefully

defend the same. However, he submitted that present was not the

case of disagreement as the Inquiry Officer did not completely

exonerate the petitioner.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

Clause 36 of the Standing Order, 1965 reads as under:

"36. One or more of the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on a worker by a competent authority. penalties from (i) to (viii) shall be appealable-

(3 of 4) [CW-12306/2016]

(i) Censure :- There censures in a period of one year will involve withholding of one increment. *(ii) (a) Withholding of increment without cumulative effect.

(b) Withholding of increment with cumulative effect or promotion.

(iii) Recovery from pay/wages of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the employer by negligence of breach of any law.

(iv) Fine upto 2% of worker's wages.

(v) Forfeiture of wages during the period or of suspension.

(vi) Reduction to a lower post or grade.

(vii) Termination of service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.

(viii) Dismissal from service which shall be disqualification for future employment."

A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the

appeal is provided only qua the penalties listed at serial Nos.(v) to

(viii).

So far as the present case is concerned, a penalty of

withholding of increment has also been imposed on the petitioner

which, in view of the above provision is not appealable. Therefore,

it cannot be concluded that against two penalties, an appeal would

lie and qua the third penalty, some other remedy would be taken

by the employee. Hence, the preliminary objection of the

respondents is not found to be tenable and is rejected as such.

In S.P. Malhotra's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to record

reasons for disagreement and communicate the same to the

delinquent and seek his response and only after considering the

same, he could pass an order of punishment. It is clear on record

that no such reasons recording the disagreement or tentative

reasons for disagreement from the report of the Inquiry Officer

have been communicated to the petitioner in the present matter.

Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in S.P.

Malhotra's case (supra) and in view of the observations as made

(4 of 4) [CW-12306/2016]

above, the order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure.4) is quashed and

set aside. However, it is left open for the Department to initiate

fresh proceedings against the petitioner after complying with all

the provisions of law.

With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

42-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)