Executive Director (Transport) R S R T C, Jaipur v. Ram Babu Gupta son of

: Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Adv,. assisted by Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Satish Khandal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 15 /07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 15/2006, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants being time barred which was filed against the judgment and decree dated

13.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) East, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 358/2002 (659/2001), by which the trial Court declared the punishment order No. 116 dated 02.03.2001 & the order No. 1030 dated

03.05.2001 as null and void and the respondent-plaintiff (for short [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (2 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] ‘the plaintiff’) held entitled to get all financial and services benefits which he could receive in the event said order would not have been passed. 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 regular conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on

03.12.1986. He was performing his duty efficiently but the defendants on account of baseless allegations vide punishment order No.116 dated 02.03.2001 forfeited the substance allowance of the suspension period and withheld 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. It was also mentioned that while conducting the inquiry, principle of natural justice was not followed. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed a counter claim and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that 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 okni= ds rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa oknh ds fo#) izfroknhx.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k dzekad 116 fnukad 2-3-2001 o vkns'k dzekad 1030 fnukad 3-5- 2001 xSjdkuwuh] voS/kkfud] U;kf;d uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls izHkko 'kwU; gS\ 2- vk;k oknh og leLr vkfFkZd o lsok ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] tks mDr vkns'k ikfjr ugha gksrk rks izkIr djrk\ [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (3 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] 3- vuqrks"k?” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Rambabu Gupta and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Mohammed Jameer Khan and exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the punishment order No.116 dated 02.03.2001 and the order No.1030 dated 03.05.2001 as null and void and the plaintiff held entitled to get all financial and services benefits which he could receive in the event said order would not have been passed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

13.12.2005, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants on account of delay. The present appeal was admitted on 18.07.2008 on the following substantial question of Law:- “As to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matters of Industrial Disputes?” Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that the case of the plaintiff pertains to Industrial Disputes, so the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submits that while conducting the inquiry against the plaintiff, proper opportunity of hearing was granted to him and principle of natural justice was not violated. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (4 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Sharma reported in 2023:RJ-JP:40817. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff rightly considered that while conducting the inquiry, no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff. So the trial court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants being time barred. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in 2009 4 SCC 299 it has been held that the civil suit is maintainable if principle of natural justice is violated. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants, learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that while conducting the inquiry against the plaintiff, no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to him. So, the principle of natural justice was violated and as per [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (5 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (Supra), civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/108 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

: Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Adv,. assisted by Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Satish Khandal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 15 /07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 15/2006, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants being time barred which was filed against the judgment and decree dated

13.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) East, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 358/2002 (659/2001), by which the trial Court declared the punishment order No. 116 dated 02.03.2001 & the order No. 1030 dated

03.05.2001 as null and void and the respondent-plaintiff (for short [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (2 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] ‘the plaintiff’) held entitled to get all financial and services benefits which he could receive in the event said order would not have been passed. 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 regular conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on

03.12.1986. He was performing his duty efficiently but the defendants on account of baseless allegations vide punishment order No.116 dated 02.03.2001 forfeited the substance allowance of the suspension period and withheld 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. It was also mentioned that while conducting the inquiry, principle of natural justice was not followed. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed a counter claim and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that 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 okni= ds rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa oknh ds fo#) izfroknhx.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k dzekad 116 fnukad 2-3-2001 o vkns'k dzekad 1030 fnukad 3-5- 2001 xSjdkuwuh] voS/kkfud] U;kf;d uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls izHkko 'kwU; gS\ 2- vk;k oknh og leLr vkfFkZd o lsok ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] tks mDr vkns'k ikfjr ugha gksrk rks izkIr djrk\ [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (3 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] 3- vuqrks"k?” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Rambabu Gupta and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Mohammed Jameer Khan and exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the punishment order No.116 dated 02.03.2001 and the order No.1030 dated 03.05.2001 as null and void and the plaintiff held entitled to get all financial and services benefits which he could receive in the event said order would not have been passed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

13.12.2005, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants on account of delay. The present appeal was admitted on 18.07.2008 on the following substantial question of Law:- “As to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matters of Industrial Disputes?” Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that the case of the plaintiff pertains to Industrial Disputes, so the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submits that while conducting the inquiry against the plaintiff, proper opportunity of hearing was granted to him and principle of natural justice was not violated. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (4 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Sharma reported in 2023:RJ-JP:40817. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff rightly considered that while conducting the inquiry, no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff. So the trial court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants being time barred. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in 2009 4 SCC 299 it has been held that the civil suit is maintainable if principle of natural justice is violated. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants, learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that while conducting the inquiry against the plaintiff, no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to him. So, the principle of natural justice was violated and as per [2025:RJ-JP:25576] (5 of 5) [CSA-416/2007] the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (Supra), civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/108 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J