Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3127 Raj

[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

[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

[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/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)