Deputy General Manager ... vs Shri Om Prakash Yadav S/O Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6495 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:33083-DB]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 976/2021
                                           In
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7311/2021

Deputy General Manager (Administration) And Authorized Disciplinary
Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

                                                                      ----Appellant

                                        Versus

Shri Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Inder Singh, Driver, Rajasthan
Parivahan Nigam, Matsaya Nagar Agar, Alwar, R/o Village - Po Kalgaon,
Tehsil -Tijara, Distt- Alwar (Rajasthan)

                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment / Order

04/11/2023

Heard on admission.

Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming

the order of the Labour Court is mainly based on the submission that,

even though, the departmental inquiry was found to be fair and proper,

the Tribunal committed error of jurisdiction in interfering with the order of

punishment on the basis that the appellant failed to prove the charge on

the basis of legally admissible evidence. Learned Single Judge in its order,

referring to a slipshod conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer without

discussion of evidence, held that the conclusion drawn by the inquiry

officer was speculative in nature.

We also find that, though, the charge was that the respondent had

recovered money without issuing ticket and collected Rs.625/-, the reason

recorded by the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge to hold in

favour of the respondent is that, even though, the bus was inspected en-

route, no money was recovered from the possession of the respondent.

[2023:RJ-JP:33083-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-976/2021]

Though in departmental inquiry, the requirement of proof is not

beyond reasonable doubt as in the criminal cases, nevertheless, the

requirement of preponderance of probability also requires at least some

evidence of collection of money was there. If the bus was checked en

route, non recovery of any money whatsoever from the possession of the

respondent, were ultimately the basis for the Labour Court and learned

Single Judge to record finding that in the absence of legally admissible

evidence of recovery of money, charges could not be held to be proved.

We may notice here that the change was not that respondent was carrying

passengers without ticket but the charge was that he had recovered

money without issuing ticket. Obviously, the most clinching evidence

would have been recovery of money from the possession of the

respondent which was not there.

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Uttar Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation & Another Versus Gopal Shukla & Another;

(2015) 17 SCC 603 and Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Versus

H. Amaresh; (2006) 6 SCC 187.

Decisions which have been cited by the learned counsel for the

appellant are pertaining to scope of judicial review with regard to quantum

of punishment. Present is not a case where even though the Labour Court

and learned Single Judge found charges proved, the quantum of

punishment was interfered with.

Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)