Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karan Singh Chundawat vs Managing Director, Rajasthan State ... on 6 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:53165]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7896/2022
Karan Singh Chundawat S/o Late Shri Madan Singh, Aged About
45 Years, Through Rajasthan Roadways Mazdoor Congress,
Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur, R/o Sector 14, House
No.214, Govardhan Vilas, Housing Board, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Head Office Jaipur, Through Chief Manager
RSRTC, Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur Depot.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Central
Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udaipur Depot.
3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Central
Bus Stand, Dungarpur.
4. Deputy General Manager (Statistics) & Authorised
Appellate Officer, RSRTC Head Office Jaipur, Through Chief
Manager RSRTC, Central Bus Stand, Udaipole, Udiapur
Depot.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reserved on : 27/08/2024
Pronounced on : 06/01/2025
BY THE COURT :-
1. By way of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner essentially
implores this Court to direct the respondent-RSRTC to grant him
the benefit of annual increment from the actual due date, which
has been withheld for two years with cumulative effect due to his
being found guilty of remaining absent from duty for 106 days
without any prior information.
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (2 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Body Fitter (Artisan Grade-III) in
respondent-RSRTC on compassionate ground vide its order dated
17.03.1997 and after successfully completing two years probation
period, his services were regularized leading to his joining on
10.07.2001. In the year 2007, he remained absent from his duties
on various dates between 01.02.2007 and 29.09.2007 due to his
ill health and information in this regard was conveyed verbally to
the authority at the first instance of respondent-RSRTC. During
that period, whenever he resumed his duties, he submitted all the
medical certificates, which were duly accepted by the authority at
the first instance.
2.1. Subsequently, when the petitioner did not get the benefit
of Selection Pay Scale even after completing 9 years of service, he
requested the respondent-RSRTC for it and then it was informed
to him that his claim could not be considered owing to the
pendency of charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-1) leveling
charges against him for remaining absent from duties between
01.02.2007 and 15.10.2007 which resulted in disruption of
technical work in the workshop. The said charge-sheet was served
upon him for the first time in the year 2015, to which he filed
reply on 19.06.2015 (Annexure-2) specifically stating therein that
he had verbally informed the authority at the first instance of the
respondent-RSRTC about his ailment and submitted all the
relevant medical certificates while resuming the duties during that
period; nevertheless, he resubmitted the copies of those
documents along with his reply.
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (3 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
2.2. In pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007
(Annexure-1) pertains to the year 2007, an inquiry was initiated
against the petitioner for the first time in the year 2015 and as a
result of which, vide inquiry report dated 04.12.2015
(Annexure-3), he was found guilty of the charges because the
medical certificates submitted by him confirmed his absence from
duty due to ailment, but he was duty bound to provide prior
information, which he failed to do. Based on the aforesaid inquiry
report, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-RSRTC vide
order dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure-4) imposed penalty under
Order 36(ii) of the Rajasthan State Transport Workers and
Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter to be
referred as 'the Order of 1965') and withheld the petitioner's three
years' annual increment with cumulative effect.
2.3. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 03.02.2016
(Anneuxre-4), the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure-5)
before the Appellate Authority of respondent-RSRTC, who vide
order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) partly allowed the appeal
and modified the penalty by reducing the period of withholding the
annual increment with cumulative effect from three years to two
years.
2.4. The petitioner challenged the order of appellate authority
dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) before the learned Industrial
Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur (hereinafter to be
referred as 'the Labour Court') raising an industrial dispute under
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by submitting the
statement of claim. After recording evidence and hearing both the
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (4 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
parties, the learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated
24.09.2021 (Annexure-12) passed in Case No.41/2017 L.C.R.
upheld the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) passed by the
Appellate Authority of the respondent-RSRTC and concluded that
the modification made by it in reducing the penalty of withholding
the annual increment with cumulative effect for three years to two
years was proper and valid. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Besides the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the learned labour court has overlooked the
fact that the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-1) was
not served upon the petitioner until the year 2015; however, it
was first time served upon him when he requested the
respondent-RSRTC to grant him the benefit of Selection Pay Scale
after completing more than 9 years of service. It is further
submitted that the respondent-RSRTC never conducted any
inquiry nor issued any notice to the petitioner regarding his
absence from duty and it was only in the year 2015, the Inquiry
Officer was appointed and as such there was a delay of 8 years in
initiating the departmental proceedings against him, for which, he
cannot be made scapegoat for this delay. Furthermore, no
explanation has been given by the respondent-RSRTC for such
lapse on its part. Thus, on this count alone the petitioner is
entitled to be granted benefit of annual increment from the actual
due date and as a consequence of which, granted benefit of
Selection Pay Scale.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
the entire disciplinary proceedings and the penalty so imposed are
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (5 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
completely misguided, flawed and amiss because the authority at
the first instance, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
completely disregarded the medical certificates provided by the
petitioner, based on which, he was allowed to join his duties after
availing the medical leave. Furthermore, the aforesaid authorities
erroneously concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide
prior information of his absence and ailment; whereas, in fact, he
had conveyed this verbally to the authority at the first instance.
Therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him
are vitiated and there remains no justifiable cause to impose
disproportionate penalty, as he was not absent willfully and prior
information was communicated verbally.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
imposition of penalty of withholding the annual increments with
cumulative effect is contrary to the provisions contained under
Order 36(ii) of the Orders of 1965 as it only provides for
withholding of increment or promotion and does not provide for
withholding the same with cumulative effect. In such
circumstances, the order under assail is liable to be set aside and
the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefit of annual increment
from the actual due date including all the consequential benefits.
3.3. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 15.02.2012
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. : (2012) 3
SCC 178, the order dated 16.09.208 rendered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Ghan Shyam Sharma Vs.
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (6 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors.
(SBCWP No.5138/2001), the order dated 18.03.2021 rendered
by another Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in
Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. (SBCWP
No.18024/2012) and subsequent order dated 23.03.2022
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the
case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur
& Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (DBSAW
No.597/2021).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC
submits that the petitioner neither informed about his absence
and ailment in advance to the authority at the first instance nor
provide any medical certificates to it while resuming his duties
following the prolonged absence. However, the medical certificates
were provided by him for the first time before the Inquiry Officer
and that were duly considered by the Appellate Authority leading
to the reduction of the penalty period from three years to two
years. Thus, the interference of this Court is not required and the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC submits that
due to long absence of petitioner without prior information, the
technical work assigned to him in the workshop of the
respondent-RSRTC got disrupted. Thus, the penalty imposed upon
him is just and proper. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be
rejected.
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (7 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
6. Heard learned counsel for the petition and perused the
material as made available to this Court.
7. The facts are undisputed that the petitioner remained
absent for long period without prior information and due to which,
the technical work of workshop of respondent-RSRTC was
interrupted.
7.1. It is noticed that the petitioner, before the Inquiry Officer,
Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Labour
Court, has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for his
prolonged absence and to prove that he had informed about it in
advance to the authority at first instance.
7.2. It is also noticed that the petitioner did not disclose
anywhere as to what ailment he was suffering that caused him to
remain absent from duty for such a long period.
7.3. The petitioner has neither given any details regarding his
ailment nor provided any medical certificates, prescription of
doctor, pathology report, radiology report and hospital record in
support of his ailment before this Court; even when asked by this
Court during the course of arguments.
7.4. The defence raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding delay in serving the charge-sheet and in
initiating the inquiry against him, is of no help because the delay
does not impact the charge levelled against him and the outcome
of the inquiry.
7.5. It is observed that the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority have dealt with all the
grounds raised by the petitioner and, thereafter, charges were
[2024:RJ-JD:53165] (8 of 8) [CW-7896/2022]
framed and penalty was imposed upon him. It is also observed
that the Appellate Authority already took a lenient view while
considering the ailment of the petitioner and reduce the duration
of penalty from three years to two years. After hearing both the
parties, recording evidence and examining the legality, correctness
and propriety of the order of Appellate Authority, the learned
Labour Court discussed on the controversy in detail and upheld
the decision of the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty
from three years to two years, in which, I see no reason to
interfere.
8. In this view of the matter, this Court concurs with the
finding made in the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure-6) passed
by the Appellate Authority of respondent-RSRTC, which was
upheld by the learned Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour
Court, Udaipur vide impugned award dated 24.09.2021
(Annexure-12) passed in Case No.41/2017 L.C.R. Consequently,
the aforementioned orders are hereby confirmed and the penalty
imposed upon the petitioner of withholding the annual increment
for two years with cumulative effect is deemed justified.
9. Hence, no force in this writ petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
10. No order as to cost.
11. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.234
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
