The Disciplinary Authority must issue a reasoned notice of disagreement when departing from exonerating findings in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

“(i) Be pleased to quash the charge-sheet Annex. 4 dated 13.08.2013.

(ii) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of punishment (Annex.16) dated 22.01.2016 passed by the respondent disciplinary authority, the Chief Manager, RSRTC, Phalodi Depot.

(iii) Be pleased to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges leveled against him by way of charge sheet (Annex.4) dated 13.08.2013.

(iv) Be pleased to direct the respondent Chief Manager to pay the remaining salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension with interest @ 12% with all consequential benefits.

(v) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.

(vi) Cost may kindly be allowed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent–Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “RSRTC”) on 04.08.1984 and was initially posted at Jalore Depot. Upon successful completion of probation, he was regularized in service by order dated 21.01.1986 (Annex.1). The petitioner served the respondent-Corporation with sincerity and dedication at various places. Lastly, he was posted at Phalodi Depot and was deployed on Phalodi–Jodhpur–Phalodi route. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.07.2013 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent-Chief Manager, Phalodi, without assigning any reason therein.

2.1. The suspension order was served upon the petitioner when he returned to Phalodi after completing his duty on the said route. On inquiry, no cogent reason for suspension was disclosed to him, except stating that an enquiry would be conducted. Subsequently, the Zonal Manager, Bikaner, by communication dated 31.07.2013, forwarded the Bus Checking Report (BCR) (Annex.3) to the respondent-Chief Manager, indicating that the bus of which the petitioner was the Conductor was checked on 19.07.2013 by respondent Onkarmal Jangid and N.S. Rathore. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 13.08.2013 (Annex.4), along with the statement of driver Luna Ram, was served upon the petitioner.

2.2. The respondent-Chief Manager ordered a departmental enquiry under Rule 35 of the Standing Orders for RSRTC vide order dated 02.09.2013 (Annex.5) and appointed Shri M.L. Sharma as the Enquiry Officer. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the charge-sheet along with the Conductor Booking Report, Electronic Ticketing Machine (ETM) slips and electronically generated daily sale account (Annex.6), denying all allegations and asserting the charges to be false and malafide. In the reply (Annex.6), the petitioner specifically submitted that the bus departed from Phalodi at 10:33:09 on 19.07.2013 with seven passengers on board and, as per ETM data, the bus was at Bus Stand, Sirmandi at 12:19:58 noon, about 30 kilometers away from Osian. Hence, the alleged checking at Osian Bus Stand at 11:30 AM was factually impossible and the allegation of misbehavior was baseless. Respondents Onkarmal Jangid and Narpat Singh Rathore examined themselves as prosecution witnesses and were cross-examined by the petitioner (Annex.7).

2.3. One Luna Ram, driver of the bus, on whose statement the second charge was framed, was also examined (Annex.8). The petitioner further examined defence witnesses Naresh s/o Suganchand and Yogendra Singh s/o Gordhan S