Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chief Manger R S R T C vs Sh Manna Lal Saini And Anr on 17 August, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12056/2011 Chief Manager, RSRTC, Kotputli Vs. Shri Manna Lal Saini & Anr. Date of Order :: 17th August, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Amit Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Manoj Pareek, for the respondent/s. By the Court:
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (for short Tribunal), Jaipur. It is a case where application for approval of the order of dismissal moved under Section 33(2)b of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) has been rejected.
It is submitted that after holding enquriy to be unfair, petitioner-corporation led its evidence. The required documents were submitted along with evidence, yet it was ignored by the Tribunal in a casual manner. The charge is found proved whereas respondent-workman failed to make entry in the ticket book, inasmuch as, for 15 passengers, office copy of ticket was found blank and otherwise, passengers were given ticket with carbon copy with shorter distance then actually undertaken by them. Learned Tribunal ignored aforesaid aspects and held charge to be not proved.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand supported the order of Tribunal and submits that blank ticket and way-bill were not produced before the Tribunal, thus application for approval of dismissal order was rightly dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and find that vide Annex.5 and 6, the respondents submitted affidavit to support the charge. It was before the Industrial Tribunal and therein, blank office copy of ticket and other documents were exhibited as M-1 to M-3 including the copy of way-bill. If order of Industrial Tribunal is looked into, then in para No.5 onwards, finding is recorded that required documents were not filed whereas affidavit at Annex.5 and 6 reveal submission of all the relevant documents. It is not necessary to produce driver in evidence to prove charge when two relevant witnesses were produced along with documents. Learned Tribunal recorded perverse finding regarding charges. The checking of cash and recording of statement of passengers is not a pre-condition for holding charges as proved in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491. The Tribunal seems to be unaware of settled law on the aforesaid issue. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal is thus contrary to material produced before it, hence, cannot be allowed to sustain. This matter needs to be viewed seriously because it involves misappropriation of public funds. The way, in which, finding has been recorded by the Tribunal, cannot be appreciated, rather needs to be deprecated.
Looking to all these reasons, impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain, rather I find that petitioner-corporation proved their case regarding misappropriation of public fund, inasmuch as, for 15 passengers, office copy of ticket was kept blank and carbon copy was issued with shorter distance, thus passengers were issued tickets with less fare and it was collected by the respondent-workman prior to inspection, accordingly approval application stands granted by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2010.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition so as the stay application are allowed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.75 preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.