Honble TATIA,J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working on the post of conductors in the buses run by the RSRTC. The respondents framed a Scheme known as Green Card Scheme for which necessary orders were issued on 7/15.12.2001. In this scheme, it was provided that the conductors may opt for this scheme and after selection the conductors will be given Green Card permitting them to ply the bus wherein the inspectors of the respondents will not be permitted to check the vehicle unless they are specially authorized by the Managing Director. In this scheme, the conductors may suggest the name of the driver and the number of the vehicle so that the same driver and the vehicle may be provided to the conductors holding Green Card, but in any case, if said driver and vehicle is not available then the other driver and vehicle will be provided, but on this ground, the conductors will not be entitled for reduction of the target fixed. The conductors were entitled in the share of profit to the extent of 35%. Out of 35%, 75% of the amount will go to the conductors and 25% to the drivers. It was also fixed that the conductors will have to give at least 23 days scheduled duty. It is also provided in the scheme that in special circumstances after obtaining the consent of the General Manager of the depot, the Green Card of any conductor can be cancelled and in that situation, the conductor will not be entitled for the above profit.

(3). In pursuance of the above scheme, the petitioners applied for the Green Card and they submitted consent letter in the month of Dec., 2001 itself. But, it appears that the petitioners failed to achieve the target fixed for the route and, therefore, the petitioners alongwith other persons, who did not achieve the target were served with office order dated 1.2.2002 intimating the intention of the respondents to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners. Copy of this order is placed on record as Annex. 2. The targets fixed in the month of Jan., 2002 are given in order dated 31st Dec., 2001 (Annex. 3). The petitioners were served with the charge-sheet, dated 27.2.2002, copies of which were placed on record as Annex. 4, 5 and 6. It appears that the petitioners were suspended, but by order dated 29.07.2002 (Annex. 7) it was decided by the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, and by the same order, they were posted at various different places. It is relevant to mention here that by order dated 29.07.2002 as many as 78 employees, who were facing departmental enquiry and against whom there were suspension orders, were permitted to join the duties and posted at different places. This order dated 29.07.2002 contains certain directions that the Chief Manager will personally see that there is no complaint of corruption against these employees and before sending them to any route a target will be fixed and, thereafter, these employees will be sent on the above route. Any request of transfer and posting of these employees will not be considered for one year.

(4). In these circumstances, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents by which the respondents contemplating to proceed against the petitioners by holding departmental enquiry for the alleged misconduct of not achieving the target fixed in the above Green Card Scheme and also challenged the transfer order dated 29.07.2002.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who opted for the scheme knowing it well that they will have to achieve the target, but for that purpose, they cannot compel or bring the passengers to earn the profit for the corporation. They were also knowing that in case, they will not achieve the target, their card can be cancelled and as per the Clause 12 of the Scheme they will not be entitled for the benefit of the scheme and they will be deprived of the share in the profit. It is also submitted t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document