Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Singh vs The Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:24085]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4713/2024
Hari Singh S/o Indra Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village
Post Tibana, Teh. Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Its Managing Director, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Panwar for
Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/05/2024
1. The present writ petition has been preferred aggrieved of the
charge-sheet dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure-1) whereby a charge
pertaining to the comparatively lesser generation of revenue by
the petitioner, has been framed against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Coordinate
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Leela Dhar vs.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2941/2010 (decided on 18.07.2013) wherein the
Court held as under:
"Indisputably, the petitioner was charge sheeted
for collecting less revenue while discharging duty on
[2024:RJ-JD:24085] (2 of 3) [CW-4713/2024]
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 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."
Counsel submits that the present petition would also be
covered by the ratio as laid down in the case of Leela Dhar
(supra).
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the
above submission.
4. In view of the submissions made and in view of ratio in
Leela Dhar's case (supra), the charge as framed against the
petitioner cannot survive and the charge-sheet dated 09.11.2016
[2024:RJ-JD:24085] (3 of 3) [CW-4713/2024]
(Annexure-1) hence, deserves to be and is hereby quahsed and
set aside. The present writ petition is hence, allowed.
5. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
13-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
