##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5467]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13526/2025

Chief Manager, Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Banswara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Narpath Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Conductor, Resident

Of Gram Sarwadi, Via- Losal, Post- Sarwadi, District-

Sikar, (Rajasthan).(Died During Proceedings)

1/1. Smt. Radha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Narpath Singh,

Resident Of Gram Sarwadi, Via- Losal, Post-Sarwadi,

District- Sikar, (Rajasthan).

1/2. Shri Prithviraj S/o Late Shri Narpath Singh, Resident Of

Gram Sarwadi, Via- Losal, Post-Sarwadi, District- Sikar,

(Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Deora

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

05/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Banswara, against

order dated 11.12.2024 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for

short, ‘Tribunal’), whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) has

been dismissed.

2. It is stated that the deceased employee, since

committed misconduct of carrying passenger without ticket,

therefore, two charge-sheets bearing No. 664 & 1818 were issued

to him on 24.04.1994 & 01.09.1995 respectively. Pursuant to such

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:08:16 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:56:32 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5467] (2 of 4) [CW-13526/2025]

charge-sheets, enquiry was conducted by the Corporation and

after granting complete opportunity of hearing to the employee,

penalty order of removal from service was inflicted upon the

employee on 02.09.1997.

3. Petitioner-Corporation thereafter filed an application

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 for seeking approval of

the penalty order of removal from service. However, during the

pendency of such proceedings the employee-Narpath Singh

expired on 28.06.2017. He was substituted by the legal

representatives, who contested the application under Section

33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 on behalf of deceased employee.

4. During proceedings, the enquiry conducted by the

petitioner in respect of charge-sheet No.664 was held to be unfair

and improper and the enquiry pursuant to charge-sheet No.1818

was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 10.10.2024. After

holding the enquiry pursuant to charge-sheet No.664, the

Corporation was granted opportunity to prove the charges,

however, despite placing sufficient evidence on record, as per

petitioner, the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of

1947 has been rejected vide order dated 11.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order dated 11.12.2024 has been passed by learned Tribunal

without properly appreciating the facts of the case, material on

record and law prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits

that learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law and

jurisdiction in substituting the view and opinion of the Disciplinary

Authority and has given finding ignoring the fundamental principle

that during enquiry the employer is supposed to prove the charges

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:08:16 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:56:32 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5467] (3 of 4) [CW-13526/2025]

on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond

reasonable doubt.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

so far as charge-sheet No.1818, the enquiry proceedings has been

held to be fair and proper, hence, under these circumstances,

there was no impediment in the way of learned Tribunal in

granting approval to the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the record.

8. It is not in dispute that much before passing any order

on fairness and propriety of the enquiry proceedings, the

employee died in the year 2017 and the order with regard to

fairness was passed on 10.10.2024. So far as, charge-sheet

No.664 is concerned, as the enquiry was held to be unfair and

improper, the petitioner-Corporation was required to prove the

charges before