Rajasthan High Court
Munshi Ram S/O Shri Sukharam vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:26462]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 339/2019
Munshi Ram, aged about 51 years, S/o Shri Sukharam, Driver,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Shri Madhopur
Depot, Resident Of Village Govindpura, Bansdi, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Jaipur.
----Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Privahan
Marg, Chomu House, Headquarters, Jaipur Through Its
Managing Director
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Shri Madhopur Depot, Shri Madhopur,
District Sikar
----Defendants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sushila Kalwania
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
04/10/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan (Rajasthan) (for brevity,
"the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.20/2018
(CIS No.-CRA/192/2108) whereby, while allowing the first appeal
preferred by the respondents-defendants (for brevity, "the
defendants"), the judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by the
learned Upper Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity,
"the learned trial Court") decreeing the suit for declaratory
[2023:RJ-JP:26462] (2 of 4) [CSA-339/2019]
injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, "the
plaintiff"), has been reversed and the suit has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaratory injunction stating therein that while working as driver
with the defendant-corporation, he was served with a charge-
sheet dated 18.05.2010 alleging therein that on that day, at about
10:45 a.m., he misbehaved with the complainant-Shri Babu Singh,
a conductor and also slapped him which amount to gross
indiscipline. It was averred that vide impugned order dated
27.04.2012, a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Alleging that the
departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles
of natural justice, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.
The defendants in their joint written statement submitted
that the order of punishment was passed after conducting the
departmental enquiry as per the provisions of Standing Order,
1965 in which the plaintiff was given full opportunity to defend
himself. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence
of the plaintiff as the defendants did not lead any evidence, the
learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated
01.08.2018. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the
defendants has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 whereby, while reversing
the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the
suit has been dismissed.
[2023:RJ-JP:26462] (3 of 4) [CSA-339/2019]
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned
counsel for the plaintiff submits that the learned Appellate Court
erred in failing to appreciate that while, in the charge-sheet, it
was alleged that he misbehaved with the complainant and slapped
him in presence of the disciplinary authority; but, the complainant
has stated in his statement during course of the departmental
enquiry that he was slapped by the plaintiff outside the office. She
further submitted that the learned Appellate Court also erred in
not granting the defendants an opportunity to conduct a fresh
departmental enquiry. She, therefore, prays that the civil second
appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 be
quashed and set aside and the suit be decreed.
Heard. Considered.
While decreeing the suit, the learned trial Court has held that
the departmental enquiry conducted against the plaintiff without
holding a preliminary enquiry was bad in law. It was also held that
there are contradiction in the evidence as to where the plaintiff
had slapped the complainant and the plaintiff was held guilty of
the charge levelled against him relying solely upon the statement
of the complainant without any corroboration. However, the
learned Appellate Court reversed the findings holding that in the
Standing Order, 1965 whereunder the departmental enquiry was
conducted, there was no provision for holding a preliminary
enquiry before initiation of the departmental enquiry against a
delinquent. It was further held that the plaintiff has not only
admitted in his reply to the charge-sheet (Exhibit-2) that he has
slapped the complainant; but, in his statement recorded in the
departmental enquiry as well. Further, in his statement (Ex-A-10)
[2023:RJ-JP:26462] (4 of 4) [CSA-339/2019]
submitted after receipt of the notice of personal hearing, he has
assured not to repeat the incident in future and to have done so
under mental tension. It is not case of the plaintiff that the
aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are
either perverse and/or not based on evidence on record. In view
of the aforesaid categorical admission by the plaintiff as to the
charge levelled against him, in the considered opinion of this
Court, learned Appellate Court did not err in reversing the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissing the suit.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned Appellate Court ought to have extended the defendants an
opportunity to conduct a fresh departmental enquriy against him,
is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance inasmuch
as the departmental enquiry against the plaintiff has been held to
be valid.
Since, no substantial question of law is involved in the
instant civil second appeal, the same is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
