Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Shivpal Ram vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 29 May, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6268/2019
Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Shivpal Ram, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Mukam Post Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its
Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office Parivahan
Marg, Jaipur.
2. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager Cum Authorize Appellate Authority,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Zone,
Ajmer.
4. Chief Manager, Ajaymeru Depot, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
29/05/2019
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.10.2010 whereby the services of the petitioner as conductor in RSRTC has been terminated by invoking Standing Order 36(7) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965.
Petitioner also feels aggrieved against the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:02:01 AM) (2 of 5) [CW-6268/2019] Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the termination order.
The facts pleaded in the petition, in the nutshell, are that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 19.05.2009, wherein the allegation was levelled of carrying 23 passengers without ticket. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had collected the fare from 23 passengers and he did not issue tickets to them. The charge-sheet also made a reference for eight different incidents/misconduct committed by the petitioner from the year 1996 to December, 2008.
The Disciplinary Authority after conducting the enquiry through Enquiry Officer found that charges were proved against the petitioner and after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, in response to show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority formed an opinion that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct, as 23 passengers were traveling without ticket and the petitioner had already collected Rs. 299/- from these passengers. The Disciplinary Authority also found that on eight different occasions, the petitioner was punished with penalties like stoppage of increment, recovery of loss caused to the Corporation, warning, etc. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the gravity of charges, recorded a finding against the petitioner that the petitioner after being given several warnings to him, did not improve and as such the order of termination of service was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:02:01 AM)
(3 of 5) [CW-6268/2019] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished with major penalty in a discriminatory manner and action of the respondents is arbitrary one. Counsel submitted that the Corporation in such like cases of carrying passengers without ticket, has imposed penalty of censure and as such reference is made to an order dt. 22.01.2016 passed in respect of one Malam Singh, who was alleged to be carrying 27 passengers without ticket.
Counsel submitted that the Corporation has to follow uniform policy, in the matter of imposition of penalty and if allegation against the petitioner was in respect of carrying 23 passengers without ticket, the petitioner could not have been visited with major penalty of termination of service.
Counsel further submitted that the Standing Orders of 1965, though give discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty, the same has to be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after taking into account the relevant factors and at least parity is required to be maintained.
This Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy with regard to filing of the writ petition in the year 2019 challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the year 2010 and the order of the Appellate Authority in the year 2011. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner though exhausted the remedy of filing the appeal, he also approached the respondents by way of representation to reconsider the entire matter.
This Court finds that the penalty order as well as the Appellate Authority's order were passed by the respondents in the year 2010 and 2011 respectively and filing of the petition in the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:02:01 AM) (4 of 5) [CW-6268/2019] year 2019, suffers from serious laches and delay. This Court further finds that once the Appellate Authority had issued the order dated 11.11.2011, the petitioner having availed the right of appeal, could not have waited for 8 years to approach this Court to challenge the order, which has been passed against him.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached the respondents by way of review petition and as such he makes a reference of review petition (Annex. 6) dt. 11.12.2018. Counsel submitted that no order has been passed on review petition and as such petitioner has approached this Court.
This Court finds that as far as review is concerned, the Standing Orders, 1965 nowhere provides that a review petition can be filed after the Appellate Authority has passed the order. The filing of review petition seems to be an endeavor to cover the delay which is already caused after dismissal of appeal in the year 2011 and as such filing of the review petition and pendency thereof cannot be a ground to file the petition in the year 2019 against the order dated 11.11.2011 and to entertain the same.
Counsel submitted that the petitioner since has been discriminated and orders have been passed in arbitrary manner, he has ample right to approach this Court invoking its extra- ordinary jurisdiction.
This Court is afraid to entertain the present writ petition challenging the orders passed in the year 2010-11 and writ petition is filed at belated stage and the same is not entertained.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner about the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in discriminatory manner, this Court finds that there was an allegation against the petitioner of carrying passengers without (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:02:01 AM) (5 of 5) [CW-6268/2019] ticket and after charge being proved in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty order.
This Court further finds that the petitioner was alleged to have committed irregularities and misconduct on eight different occasions, as has been reflected from the charge-sheet as well as from the impugned punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire service record of the petitioner, has found that in spite of warning given to the petitioner, he had not shown any improvement and as such the employer had no option except to pass the termination order.
The plea of discrimination, as raised by counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that if the Disciplinary Authority in a given case has passed the order of imposing censure, the analogy of imposing the same punishment on the petitioner cannot be attracted and the order which has been placed on record by the petitioner, in respect of one employee- Malam Singh, cannot be a factor to decide the validity of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in the present case.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Jatin /28 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:02:01 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)