High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan · 2025

Harimohan Sharma S/o Shri Jwala Prasad Sharma, R/o Plot No.33, Kishan Vatika Colony, Behind Jodla Power House, Harmada Jaipur. Ex Conductor Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalawar Depot. Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 16 /07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 02.02016, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, [2025:RJ-JP:26363] (2 of 5) [CSA-292/2017] Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 13/2011, by which the trial Court while partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) declared the termination order No. 3164 dated 06.04.2005 and appealable order No. 1624 dated 14.09.2010 as null and void on the ground being contrary to the principles of natural justice. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants mentioning therein that the plaintiff was appointed as a regular Conductor in the defendants' Corporation. During the service, charge sheet No. 264 dated

01.07.2004 and charge sheet No. 687 dated 22.11.2004 were issued to the plaintiff for carrying the passengers without ticket. Copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to him, as a result of which, the plaintiff could not filed his reply. Without receiving reply to the charge sheet from the plaintiff, Inquiry Officer was appointed. In one enquiry, opportunity of hearing was not given and opportunity to defend his case was not provided to the plaintiff, as a result of which principles of natural justice violated. In another enquiry, on account of non-supply of copy of the relevant documents, the plaintiff could not file his reply and exparte enquiry report was prepared. Thus, again principles of natural justice was violated. The disciplinary authority also did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, nor supplied copy of the enquiry report to him. No notice was sent to the plaintiff at his Bundi address and after showing him absent, his services were terminated. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that charge sheets were [2025:RJ-JP:26363] (3 of 5) [CSA-292/2017] issued to the plaintiff for carrying passengers without ticket in the bus in which plaintiff was discharging his duties as a Conductor. It was also mentioned that plaintiff deliberately did not appear on

13.11.2005. So, exparte proceedings were initiated against him. Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to him and proper opportunity of hearing was given to him. Plaintiff also cross- examined the witnesses. So, no principle of natural justice was violated. It was also mentioned that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and only the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try it. Therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k fd oknh izfroknhx.k }kjk ikfjr lsoki`Fkd vkns'k dzekad 3164 fnukafdr 06-4-2005 o vihy fujLrhdj.k vkns'k dzekad 1624 fnukad 14-9-2010 voS/k o izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kar ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k voS/k o 'kwU; ? kksf"kr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k fd oknh mDr lsok i`Fkd vkns'k ds iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa leLr lsok&ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k fd oknh }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa vkus ds dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks gLrxr okn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS\ 4- vk;k fd oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\ [2025:RJ-JP:26363] (4 of 5) [CSA-292/2017] To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Harimohan Sharma and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Chiranji Lal and DW-2-Thakur Das and exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2013, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared termination order No. 3164 dated

06.04.2005 and appealable order No. 1624 dated 14.09.2010 as null and void being contrary to the principles of natural justice. Defendants as well as plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 12.12.2013 passed by the trial Court by way of appeals and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2017 dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants as well as plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in declaring termination order No. 3164 dated 06.04.2005 and appealable order No. 1624 dated 14.09.2010 as null and void because defendants granted proper opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff to defend his case. He had filed the reply and cross- examined the witness. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try it. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2013 passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2017 passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the appeal filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:26363] (5 of 5) [CSA-292/2017] defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to deny the aforesaid facts. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. The trial Court while declaring termination order No. 3164 dated 06.04.2005 and appealable order No. 1624 dated

14.09.2010 as null and void clearly observed that principles of natural justice was violated. Defendants did not give proper opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses and to defend his case. So, the matter was remanded back to the authorities to pass a fresh order by conducting fresh inquiry after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff to cross- examine the witnesses and to produce defence evidence. The first appellate Court has also affirmed the said order. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeals filed by the defendants. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/79 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J