Narendra Kumar Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8191 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8191 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Kumar Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 19 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:38857]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19215/2023

Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdhish Narayan Sharma,
Aged About 61 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o 52, Tilak Nagar 1st,
Opposite Suncity Petrol Pump, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur (Raj.).
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its
         Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Choumu
         House, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
         Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg,
         Choumu House, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       The Chief Managar, Rajasthan State Road Transport
         Corporation, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Mukesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Harish Purohit
                                   Mr. Shashank Sharma



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/09/2024

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. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner

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

[2024:RJ-JD:38857] (2 of 3) [CW-19215/2023]

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. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent -

Department, 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

[2024:RJ-JD:38857] (3 of 3) [CW-19215/2023]

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."

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 17.06.2002, 30.11.2002 and 29.10.2018

passed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,

Jodhpur Depot are hereby quashed and set aside.

(FARJAND ALI),J 84-Ashutosh/-