Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Gopa Ram - Petitioner
Versus
Chairman And Md., Rsrtc Ltd., And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6058 of 2012
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Negligence while driving - Collided with a wall near - Financial loss - Impugned order passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside – Third RM Bolt of Bus got damaged, due to which steering became free, resulting into dragging of bus – Para 10.
Finding of the Court :
As per enquiry report, owing to statement rendered by concerned Vehicle Mechanic, main cause of incident was damage being caused to third RM Bolt, which, in circumstances, cannot be attributed to petitioner - Thus, enquiry officer did not find charge to be proved against petitioner - It is clear that impugned order itself has not been passed, in right perspective, more particularly, in view of fact that charges, as levelled against petitioner, did not project correct factual position of matter, rather said impugned order clearly discerns a much contradictory factual matrix - Impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(i) the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 (Ann.7) passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 29.02.2012 (Ann.8) passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was posted as Driver under the respondent-Corporation at Barmer. However, on 03.10.2007, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the concerned authority of the respondent-Corporation, indicating therein two charges against the petitioner, regarding the act of negligence on his part, while driving, in discharge of his duties, a Bus, of the respondent-Corporation, bearing registration No.RJ-04-PA-0140 on Barmer-Jhunjhunu route.
2.1 The first charge against the petitioner, as per the charge-sheet, was that on 05.09.2007, while, in discharge of his duties, the petitioner was driving Bus No. RJ 04 PA-140, at 02:15 a.m., when the said bus reached near Raghunathpura, at that time, it was clear, upon seeing the position of the vehicle, that the driver (petitioner) was in a sleeping condition, or on count of puncture in the tyre of the driver side, the bus dragged and broke the wall near the road due to collision, and thereafter, the bus got into a pond (Talaab); thereby causing a financial loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-to the respondent-Corporation due to negligence on the part of the petitioner.
2.1.1 The second charge, as per the charge-sheet, was that on 04.09.2007, while the petitioner was driving the same bus on the same route, prior to reaching Deedwana, the bus, due to negligence of the petitioner, collided with a wall near the road; due to which, a new tyre of the bus got burst, thereby causing a financial loss to the tune of Rs.7530/-to the respondent-Corporation.
2.1.2 The petitioner filed a reply on 03.11.2007 to the aforementioned charge-sheet, while denying the charges therein.
2.1.3 Prior thereto, the respondents, vide order dated 02.11.2007 appointed the Enquiry Officer i.e. Shri J.P. Sharma; however, upon the petitioner being transferred to Phalodi Depot to Barmer Depot, the enquiry officer was changed vide order dated 26.04.2010. The said enquiry officer thereafter, submitted his report on 21.12.2010, wherein the enquiry officer, after recording the statements and looking into the evidence and other material placed before him, did not find the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
2.2. Thereafter, the respondents, being dissatisfied with the aforementioned report of the enquiry officer, and issued a notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2011 for personal hearing. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 23.11.2011 and denied the charges against him.
2.3 The respondents however, vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 imposed upon the petitioner a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and a recovery of an amount of Rs.27,260/-(in ten equal installments) from the salary of the petitioner.
2.3.1 The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.2, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, while upholding the impugned punishment order dated 30.11.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer did not find any charge to be proved against the petitioner; the respondents however, being dissatisfied with the said enquiry report, issued the aforementioned notice to the petitioner, whereafter, the impugned punishment order was passed against him,
Main cause of incident was damage being caused to third RM Bolt.
Departmental proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and charges against an employee must be established based on the material presented.
Procedural fairness in labour enquiries requires opportunity for cross-examination and consideration of employee's arguments, reflecting the need for equitable treatment in disciplinary actions.
The judgment establishes that mere negligence does not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under standing orders, and that disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the proven misconduct.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice, prohibiting the use of preliminary inquiry evidence in regular inquiries without proper cross-examination rights.
The court emphasized that charges of misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence and that the prescribed procedures must be followed. The court also highlighted the principle that the punish....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
