[2026:RJ-JP:6722]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8461/2025 The Chief Manager, Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner/Applicant Versus Motiram S/o Pokharram, Ex-Conductor, R/o Village & Post-Yalsar, Tehsil-Laxmangarh, District-Sikar, (Raj.)

----Respondent/Non-Applicant For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

11/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ' the Tribunal'), whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), filed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara, has been dismissed.

2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the respondent-workman was carrying 32 passengers without tickets on 16.08.1994 in Bus No. 3072 on Bijolia-Bhilwara route, charge-sheet under Clause 34 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, was issued to him on 13.09.1994. Due opportunity of hearing was given to the workman and after conducting enquiry, the order of dismissal from service was passed on 20.02.1998. Thereafter, petitioner-Corporation filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 after making necessary compliance of serving the order to the workman along with one month's notice pay as well as filing the application on the same day before the Tribunal. However, vide order dated 28.11.2024, the enquiry held by the petitioner-Corporation was declared to be unfair and improper. Thereafter, opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Corporation to prove the charges before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Corporation produced sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the respondent-workman was carrying passengers without tickets and was also habitual of committing such misconduct in the past also, as he was charged with the similar allegations. He also submits that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 are summary proceedings and the Industrial Tribunal cannot meticulously examine the evidence treating it to be reference proceedings under the Act of 1947.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that in departmental proceedings, decision is taken by the employer on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by proving the charges beyond reasonable doubts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that merely on account of the fact that the enquiry was held to be improper and unfair by the Tribunal, the decision earlier taken by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be substituted by giving perverse and irrational findings by not giving cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence laid by the petitioner-Corporation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of John D'Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2019 (18) SCC 47 in support of her contention that the scope of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 is quite limited and learned Tribunal has transgressed its powers while passing judgment dated 07.04.2025.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that while examining the question of fairness of enquiry, order dated 28.11.2024 was passed by the Tribunal, whereby the enquiry earlier conducted by the petitioner-Corporation was held to be improper and unfair, It has also not been disputed that the order dated 28.11.2024 was not challenged by the petitioner- Corporation at the relevant time and the petitioner, without raising any protest, participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal and thereafte