Bal Kishan Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 October, 1995
The same view was reiterated by the Division bench of this Court in R.S.R.T.C. v. Shri Ram Yadav (supra)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)Documents citing
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Shri Ram Yadav on 9 May, 1995
Sher Singh Yadav vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors on 2 May, 2025
21. It would be relevant to refer following paras on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State
Road Transport Vs. Shri Ram Yadav (supra):
Sri Ravinder Daravath vs Directorate Of Forensic Science ... on 4 February, 2026
38. Though the rule applicable to the applicant does not specifically say
that authority should state reasons while imposing a specific penalty, it can
be presumed that the statute impliedly warranted it. This decision in
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Shri Ram Yadav was
followed by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sher Singh
Yadav v. Bank of Baroda and Ors [AIR Online 2025 RAJ 167]. It was held
in that case also that the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind with
regard to the requirement of indicating good and sufficient reasons for
choosing penalty of removal from service. On the other hand, learned
SCGSC contended that choosing the appropriate penalty was in the domain
of the authority concerned and that cannot be interfered by the Tribunals.
Oswald S. Joseph vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 29 August, 1996
In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Shri Ram Yadav 1995 (3) WLC Raj. 16, with reference to particular Rule 36 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees' Standing Orders, 1965, the essence of Rule has been explained and the principles of service jurisprudence have been elaborated. It has been held in this case that it is the duty of the competent authority to, apply its mind in making selection of penalty for 'good and sufficient reasons' taking into account all vital considerations as to the gravity of charge, its consequences, working conditions of the delinquent and circumstances relating to the commission of misconduct. It was further held that it is the incumbent duty of the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind to various alternative penalties which are to be imposed on the delinquent and to indicate the requirement by way of giving out good and sufficient reasons for choosing any particular penalty. In this particular perspective, the nature and magnitude of the charge, desirability or undesirability of retaining the delinquent in service and adequacy of penalty lesser than dismissal or removal from service and other aspects constitute vital considerations while imposing penalty. That was a case where the delinquent Conductor, an employee of the Corporation was found guilty of charges of allowing passengers without ticket, not making entry in the way bill and allowing bus to proceed without handing over the way bill to the Driver and there was imposition of penalty of removal from service, coupled with the forfeiture of wages for the entire suspension period. The Division Bench thought it its duty, even though confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, that the punishment was not just and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench modified the penalty to one of withholding of three annual grade increments with future effect and the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service immediately. The workman was directed to be paid 50% of the back wages.
Jai Bhagwan Son Of Shri Chhaju Ram vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 29 January, 2014
3. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated that the applicant had voluntarily got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There was no material difference in the statement given by the applicant in the trial of Joginder Dahiya and Sanjay Rana before the Sessions Court, and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., and the applicant had deposed truthfully before the Court. Further, the Investigating Officer had never associated the applicant with the investigation of the case after the statement of the applicant was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. No identification parade was ever held by the I.O. in association with the applicant and so there was no question of the applicant recognizing the two persons who were the main accused in the trial before the Sessions Court. It is further stated that the applicant was not aware whether the two persons who met the applicant at the gate of the Police Lines, Chandigarh were the real Joginder Dahiya and Sanjay Rana or some one else who spoke on behalf of Joginder Dahiya and Sanjay Rana. Hence the applicant had not deviated from his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. while giving evidence before the Sessions Court. Moreover, the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure A-10) was devoid of reasons in support of the decision recording of which was obligatory on the part of quasi judicial authorities in view of State of Punjab Vs. Jagtar Singh reported 1989 (1) RSJ, 488; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corperation Vs. Ram Yadav, reported 1995 (3) SCT 789; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported 1990 (5) SLR 8 SC and Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P. reported 1970 SC 1302 and hence dismissal order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure A-6) and appellate order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure A-10) should be quashed.
Shanker Lal Sharma vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 25 April, 1996
A minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect would be just and proper for the charge of remaining absent from duty from 29.9.1979 to 18.10.79. But denying the back-wages for the period from termination i.e. from 30.4.1981 till the reinstatement i.e. 1987 for six years will be a very harsh penalty. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the order of penalty, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Tribunal, in its power under Article 227 of the Constitution but when this Court is fully satisfied that the order of penalty is highly disproportionate to the charges proved against the workman then certainly this Court will interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Coloration and Ors. v. Shri Ram Yadav reported in 1995(3) WLC(Raj) 16 has held as under;
Ram Swaroop vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 15 April, 1996
In support, of this contaenation, reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Rqjasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Shri Ram Yadav 1995(3) WLC (Raj.) 16. At this stage, it would be proper to state a few of this case which namely are , that the petitioner was initially appointed as Trainee Traffic Apprentice on 19.4.76 on probation. On March 21, 1978 when his vehicle was checked, it Was found that 2 1/2 passengers were travelling in his bus without ticket. In another incident of March 31, 1978, it was found that out of seven passengers, he recovered money from four passengers and three were travelling without tickets. An inquiry was made in these two cases and in the inquiry both the cases were found proved against the petitioner workman and, therefore, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated March 27,1979. I am of the view that a person involving in such a serious charge of mis-appropriation and criminal breach of trust, cannot be continued in service. It may also be noticed that the petitioner was on probation and he committed two mis- conducts of similar nature within a period of two months. From the appointment order, it is clear that the services of the petitioner could have been terminated even without giving notice. It is not that for these two mis-conduct only the petitioner's services were terminated. In the past, the petitioner committed similar mis-conducts on June 10, 1976, June 17, 1976 July 28, 1976 and August 4, 1976. For that, the petitioner was removed from service but in an appeal, he was reinstated' in service. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no application of mind while passing the impugned order of removal at Annexure-2 by the Disciplinary Authority. How many opportunities can be given to a person ? When he was already given an opportunity to Improve himself but it seems that he became a habitual person indulding in the same type of mis- conduct and, therefore, it is not desirable that such person can be taken back in service by passing any order other than the order of removal. This will not only encourage him but other similarly situated person too to commit such mis-conduct.
Ramesh Chandra Soni vs . State Of Rajasthan And Others on 15 May, 2014
A Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Shri Ram Yadav 1995 (3) WLC (Raj.) 16, held that it was duty of disciplinary authority to apply mind to various alternative penalties to be imposed on delinquent. He was required to indicate good and sufficient reasons for choosing any particular penalty. While imposing penalty, the nature and magnitude of charge, desirability or undesirability of retaining delinquent in service and adequacy of penalty lesser than dismissal or removal and other aspect constitute vital considerations. Even the appellate authority has been charged with the duty to see whether the procedure laid down in these rules have been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe.
Shiv Kumar Soni vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 13 March, 2018
13. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Yadav,
MANU/RH/0367/1995 : 1995 (3) WLC (Raj.) 16, held
that it was duty of disciplinary authority to apply mind to
various alternative penalties to be imposed on
delinquent. He was required to indicate 'good and
sufficient reasons' for choosing any particular penalty.
While imposing penalty, the nature and magnitude of
charge, desirability or undesirability of retaining
delinquent in service and adequacy of penalty lesser
than dismissal or removal and other aspect constitute
vital considerations. Even the appellate authority has
been charged with the duty to see whether the
procedure laid down in these rules have been complied
with and if not, whether such non-compliance has
resulted in the violation of any provisions of the
Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; whether
(9 of 12)
[CW-4125/2009]
the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted
by the evidence on the record; and whether the penalty
or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate,
inadequate or severe.
Ena Passi vs Central Public Works Division on 23 September, 2024
No. 3457 of 2012 D/d 01.02.2019), State of U.P. V.
Yamuna Shaker Mishra & Anr, JT 1997(4) S.C. 1, A.K. Yadav V.
Union of India and Ors., CAT, Jaipur Bench (OA No. 431/2000
decided on 14.06.2002), Dr. P. Surendra V. The Inspector
General, North Sector, CISF, New Delhi, CAT, Hyderabad Bench
(OA-577/2005 decided on 23.12.2005), S.T Ramesh V. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 1262, Dr. Parveen Chopra Vs Union of
India & Ors (CAT Chandigarh Bench), OA No. 473/2011 DOD-
03.08.2012, Central Coal Fields Ltd & Ors V. Triben Prasand,
2005 LIC 354, Yoginder Sharma V. Management of Arawali
Leasing Ltd, 2013(3) LLJ 381, S.N Mukherjee V. Union of India,
1991(1) S.C.T 241, State of Punjab V. Dr. Ramkrsihana Chopra,
1977 (2) SLR 809, Rajasthan State Road Transport V. Ram
Yadav, 1995 (3) SCT 789.