Raghvendra Singh vs Rsrtc And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4363 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4363 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raghvendra Singh vs Rsrtc And Ors. ... on 10 May, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/014486]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15274/2021

Yadav Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gop Singh Rathore, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Plot No. 262-A, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Block No. 25, Dhabi Marble, Nandri, Banar Road, Jodhpur At Present Working As Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/2018 Yadav Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Gop Singh Rathore, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Plot No. 262-A, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Block No. 25, Dhabi Marble, Nandri, Banar Road, Jodhpur At Present Working As Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5126/2018 Raghvendra Singh Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh, Resident Of Churu, Tehsil And District Churu At Present Working As Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Churu Depot, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

[2023/RJJD/014486] (2 of 4) [CW-15274/2021]

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur Through Its Chairman- Cum - Managing Director.

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Churu Depot, Churu.

3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jalore Depot, Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit Mr. P.R. Singh Jodha

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

10/05/2023

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. Poonia, 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 penalty has

been imposed as per the prevailing standing order and the

[2023/RJJD/014486] (3 of 4) [CW-15274/2021]

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 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

[2023/RJJD/014486] (4 of 4) [CW-15274/2021]

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 impugned

orders in each of the writ petitions are hereby quashed.