Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Rashid Khan vs Raj. Road Transport Corpn. And Ors on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003723]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12706/2013
Abdul Rashid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Road Transport Corpn. And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit a/w Mr. Shashank
Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 02/02/2023
Pronounced on 07/02/2023
1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, most humble prayed that writ petition may
kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ,
order or direction:-
(A) By an appropriate writ order or direction, impugned
punishment order dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.8) and appellate
order dated 26.06.2013 (Ann.10) may kindly be quashed
and set aside.
(B) The respondents may kindly be directed to give the
salary of suspension period along with interest @ 18% p.a.
(C)Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour
of petitioner".
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by
learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was
discharging his duties as Driver under the respondent no.3-
(Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 11:20:41 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003723] (2 of 5) [CW-12706/2013]
Corporation, at Sirohi. On 15.06.2012, the respondent-
Corporation also assigned the work of Conductor, to the
petitioner, during the bus travel on Bhinmal-Sirohi route;
when the bus reached at Mohabbat Nagar, the said bus was
inspected by the checking party, and during such inspection,
eight passengers were found travelling without ticket;
whereupon a report dated 15.06.2012 was forwarded to the
respondent no.3. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation
placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated
16.06.2012 and also issued the charge-sheet on 25.06.2012
and sought the explanation from the petitioner within seven
days from that date; whereupon the petitioner filed reply
thereto along with affidavits of the two passengers on
09.07.2012, while denying such allegation.
2.1. The enquiry officer was thereafter appointed by the
respondent-Corporation, and the enquiry accordingly
commenced; after conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry
officer prepared the report, while finding the allegation to be
proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-
Corporation has issued a notice dated 05.03.2013 to the
petitioner, requiring him to submit the written and oral
statements in his defence within seven days thereafter;
whereupon, the petitioner personally appeared before the
concerned authority on 07.03.2013 and requested to treat
his reply dated 09.07.2012 itself, as his defence.
2.2. The Disciplinary Authority, after hearing the parties,
vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2013, imposed a
(Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 11:20:41 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003723] (3 of 5) [CW-12706/2013]
penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with
cumulative effect & one annual grade increment without
cumulative effect, upon the petitioner, and also forfeited the
salary for the suspension period.
2.3. The petitioner filed an appeal before Appellate Authority
against said order dated 25.03.2013. The Appellate Authority
after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide the
impugned order dated 26.6.2013, upholding the order dated
25.03.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
enquiry officer has not conducted the proper and fair
enquiry, because not even a single independent witness,
pertaining to the allegation against the petitioner, has been
produced and examined.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not
consider the reply of the petitioners and the affidavits of two
passengers, filed in support of the petitioner's case. He
further submitted that even the impugned penalty imposed
by the respondent-Corporation is highly disproportionate, to
the alleged conduct of the petitioner.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Babu Lal Soni Vs. The Judge of Industrial Tribunal
Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1857/1994, decided by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench
on 22.05.2006).
(Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 11:20:41 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003723] (4 of 5) [CW-12706/2013]
(b) Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTS & Anr. (D.B. Civil
Special Appeal No.1/2001, decided by a Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench, on 20.11.2001).
(c) Tara Chand Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ No.8810/2014, decided
by this Hon'ble Court on 25.01.2007).
(d) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Inder
Singh & Anr. 1998 (2) WLC 647.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been found
guilty of the charge against him, after duly following the
procedure prescribed under the law, and that the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellant Authority, only after due
deliberations in regard to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case and the material placed on record before them
including the enquiry report, have passed the impugned
orders, which do not call for any interference by this Court.
5.1. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his
submissions, relied upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional
Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, 2006 AIR SCW
3701.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments
cited at the Bar.
(Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 11:20:41 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003723] (5 of 5) [CW-12706/2013]
7. This Court finds that the statements as well as cross
examination of the checking party and other witnesses were
recorded by the enquiry officer in the presence of the
petitioner, and the affidavits of the two witnesses produced
by the petitioner also do not reflect clear rebuttal of the
charge against the petitioner. Thus, the entire enquiry
proceedings, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges
against him, were conducted in an appropriate and lawful
manner. Furthermore, the petitioner has also not produced
any document, which could enable him to make a clear
rebuttal of the charges levelled against him. Moreover, this
Court also finds from the record that the petitioner, on
previous occasion also, was found to have committed a
similar misconduct, and earlier also, was penalized
accordingly.
8. This Court thus finds that the impugned orders are well
reasoned speaking orders, and do not call for any
interference by this Court.
9. This Court also finds that the judgments cited on behalf
of the petitioner, do not render any assistance to the
petitioner's case.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
