Hari Krishan vs The Rajasthan State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4846 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4846 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hari Krishan vs The Rajasthan State Road ... on 18 May, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/015945]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6230/2023

Hari Krishan S/o Jai Narayan, Aged About 48 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

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shardul Singh Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jasraj Rajpurohit for Mr. Suniel Purohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/05/2023

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged

penalty imposed upon him which has been levied on the ground

that the revenue generated by the petitioner (conductor) is

comparatively lesser than the revenue generated by other

conductors.

2. Mr. Shardul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

judgment dated 18.07.2013, passed by Coordinate Bench of this

Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2941/2010 (Leela Dhar

Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) and

[2023/RJJD/015945] (2 of 3) [CW-6230/2023]

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

petitioner 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 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

[2023/RJJD/015945] (3 of 3) [CW-6230/2023]

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 petitioner, this Court is of

the view that the respondents have wrongly inflicted penalty upon

the petitioner. Generation of revenue is dependent upon a series

of factors for which, the petitioner being conductor cannot be held

solely responsible.

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

(supra), the present petition is also allowed. The impugned orders

dated 14.03.2020 (Annex.4) & 07.01.2021 (Annex.5) are hereby

quashed.