[2025:RJ-JP:12278]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3517/2013 Jitesh Kumar son of Angad Singh, V & P Rewali, Tehsil Behror, District, Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Jaipur through its Chairman Cum Managing Director

2. Branch Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpo-

ration, Alwar Depot, Alwar

3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpora-

tion, Alwar Depot, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma for Mr. M. Iqbal Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/03/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the is- sue involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Radha Kr- ishan Saini Vs. RSRTC & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16483/2012 vide order dated 27.04.2018. Counsel submits that the instant writ petition be also disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra).

2. Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides and looking to the fact that the issue involved in the instant writ peti- tion has already been decided in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra), it would be significant to reproduce observations and directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench, which reads as fol-

lows:-

“The matter comes up on the misc. application No.12355/2018 filed for early listing of the case. However, with the consent of the parties the present petition is disposed of at this stage.

The petitioner has challenged order dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2012, Annex.-8 & 9 re- spectively, in the instant petition whereby he has been directed to deposit of Rs.66,437/- on ac-

count of loss of ticket bag and ETM machine.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is illegal and this Court in SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.], SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] decided by a common order dt.12.09.2013 has taken a view that if there is no allegation against a person of deliberate act or there is nothing on record to show that the tickets lost in theft or otherwise, were misused causing financial loss to the corporation and as such in absence of these facts, no action can be taken by the respon- dents-RSRTC. Counsel for the petitioner has sub- mitted that in the instant case the petitioner had also lodged FIR No.452/2012 immediately on loss of ticket bags and ETM machine vide (An-

nex.-1) dt.26.07.2012.

Mr. Vinayak Joshi, counsel for the respondents who is present in the Court submits that legal proposition is already settled by this Court and as such he submits that this Court may decide the present controversy as well. This Court finds that the impugned orders dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2018 (Annex.- 8 & 9) respectively are not legally sustainable.

This Court is further of the opinion that the re-

spondents in the impugned orders dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2012 have nowhere said that loss of ticket bag and ETM machine, has resulted into causing financial loss to the Corporation.

The present writ petition deserves to be al-

lowed and impugned orders dt.28.09.2012 & 31.08.2012 (Annex.-8 & 9) respectively are quashed and set aside. However, the respon- dents are free to recover the actual cost of ticket bag and ETM machine from the petitioner after giving him show cause notice.

The present writ petition is accordingly dis-

posed of.”

3. In view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands dis- posed of in the light of the similar directions issued in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra), and the impugned recovery notice dated 17.10.2012 passed by the respondents stands quashed and set-aside.

4. However, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the actual co