Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Beawar Depot, R/o v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter

Judgment

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur Through Managing Director.

2. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Beawar Depot, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 13/05/2025 Order The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff(for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated

19.11.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (For short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No.20/2013, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) by which trial court dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff. (2 of 5) [CSA-102/2019] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) for declaration of the impugned orders dated 30.09.2002 and

19.03.2003 as null and void. The plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he was working on the post of conductor in the defendants department. On 02.03.1997, the plaintiff was performing his duty as conductor on Vehicle No.2913 at Bikaner to Jaipur route. At the time of inspection, no passenger was found without ticket in the said vehicle but the Inspecting Officer(s) demanded bribe. On account of not fulfilling their demand, they got annoyed with the plaintiff and remarked that 7 passengers were traveling without ticket in the said vehicle. They had not checked the cash and not recorded the statement of any passenger. It was also mentioned that an enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff and he was punished on 30.09.2002 withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and a warning was also given to the plaintiff that he shall first issue the tickets to all the passengers and thereafter vehicle be proceed. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal before the defendant No.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2003. Principle of natural justice was violated in the enquiry. It was stated that the plaintiff was not given any opportunity to defend his case. No document was provided to him. So, order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority be declared as null and void. The defendants filed their written statement before the trial court and denied the illegal demand of bribe and mentioned that the plaintiff allowed the passengers in the said vehicle to travel (3 of 5) [CSA-102/2019] without ticket. So, he was rightly punished. Proper opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff to defend his case. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- 1- vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ¼N%½ esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ds vUrxZr izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds fo#) ikfjr iz’uxr vkns’k fnukad 30-09-02 o 19-3-03 voS/k o 'kwU; gS\ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds fo#) tkjh naMkns’k ls oknh ds lsok ykHk ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gS rFkk oknh leLr lsok ykHk lfgr lsok esa cus jgus dk vf/kdkj gS\ 3- vuqrks"k To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined Rajkumar as PW-1. To prove their case, the defendants got examined Gangaram Sengava as DW-1. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated,

08.05.2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated

19.11.2018 while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, affirmed the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.05.2013. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. They had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendants did not deny the averments of the plaint, so (4 of 5) [CSA-102/2019] averments of the plaint remained un-controverted. Enquiry was not properly conducted against the plaintiff. The enquiry officer had not provided the documents (charge-sheet and statement(s) of witness(es)) to the plaintiff and no opportunity was given to him to examine the witness(es) and to adduce his defence evidence. So, enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is vitiated and against the principle of natural justice. So, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below be set-aside and the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of Law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff in the enquiry. He had cross-examined the witness(es) and also adduced his evidence. Documents were also provided to the plaintiff. He had not objected these facts at the time of enquiry as well as before the appellate authority. So, the trial court and the appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal. So, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2013 while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, elaborately discussed the evidence of the parties. It is an admitted position that proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff and documents (5 of 5) [CSA-102/2019] were also provided to him. He had cross-examined the witness(es) during the enquiry and also adduced his evidence, so it can not be said that principle of natural justice was violated during the enquiry. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the second appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/61 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J