Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation, Alwar v. Radheshyam S/o

Radheshyam S/o Shri Netram, Village Post Teh. Mundawar, Distt. Alwar Raj. ----Respondent-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 26/05/2025 The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants(for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate court’), whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 passed by the Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) by which trial court decreed the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff. Resultantly, the plaintiff was held entitled to continue in service from the date of his termination and also to get all monetary benefits from the date of filing the suit i.e.

23.07.85. [2025:RJ-JP:20829] (2 of 5) [CSA-114/2010] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of the termination order dated 17.03.1982 and appellate order dated 21.10.1983 as null and void. The plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he was appointed on the post of conductor on regular basis on 22.12.1979 and since then he was discharging his duties on the said post honestly and with sincerity. On 26.05.1981, when the plaintiff was discharging his duty as conductor on Vehicle No.1016 at Tijara-Alwar route, without any physical verification of the plaintiff’s vehicle, the vigilance team of the defendants-Corporation put a remark for carrying 13 passengers without ticket and one cycle without luggage ticket. Similarly, on 15.3.1990 one more remark was put for carrying 9 passengers without ticket on Vehicle No.9079 at Bhiwari-Alwar route. On the basis of aforesaid remarks, charged sheet was issued to the plaintiff and enquiry was conducted against him without supplying relevant documents and affording proper opportunity of hearing. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated

17.03.1982 terminated the services of the plaintiff. Against the aforesaid termination order 17.03.1982, the plaintiff filed a departmental appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated

21.10.1983. So, order dated 17.03.1982 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 21.10.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority be declared as null and void. The defendants filed their written statement before the trial court and denied the averments as made in the plaint and mentioned that during enquiry, proper opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff to defend his case. So, principle of natural [2025:RJ-JP:20829] (3 of 5) [CSA-114/2010] justice was not violated. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh ds f[kykQ tkjh fd;k x;k lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns’k dzekad&993] fnukad 17-3-82 vihyh; vkns’k dzekad&2876] fnukad 21-10-83 xSj dkuwuh] oS| o uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds f[kykQ gksus ds dkj.k 'kwU; gS rFkk fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 2- vk;k oknh ifjpkyd ds in ij LFkk;h gS\ 3- vk;k oknh }kjk izLrqr okni= U;k;ky; gktk dks fuf.kZr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS\ 4- vk;k okn dk ewY;kadu lgh ugha fd;s tkus o iw.kZ U;k; 'kqYd vnk ugha djus ls okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 5- nknjlhA To prove his case, the plaintiff-Radheshyam got himself examined as PW-1. The defendant after getting numerous opportunities, had not adduced any evidence and thus their evidence was closed. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990, while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the order dated 17.03.1982 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 21.10.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority as null and void and the plaintiff was held entitled to continue in service from the date of his termination and also to get all monetary benefits from the date of filing the suit i.e. 23.07.85. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated, 24.09.1990, the defendants filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:20829] (4 of 5) [CSA-114/2010]

03.10.2007 also dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants as having become infructuous. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff in his favour and the appellate court vide order dated 03.10.2007 also committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff to defend his case during department enquiry but he did not avail the same. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court wrongly came to the conclusion that principle of natural justice was violated. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the matter regarding termination. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the appellate court as well as the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of Law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order and judgment passed by the courts below. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, elaborately dealt with the issues. During trial, the defendants had not adduced any evidence to prove their case. The trial court rightly came to the [2025:RJ-JP:20829] (5 of 5) [CSA-114/2010] conclusion that during enquiry, no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to defend his case. Thus, principle of natural justice was violated. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 rightly declared the termination order dated 17.03.1982 and appellate order dated

21.10.1983 as null and void and the appellate court vide order dated 03.10.2007 rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. 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 filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/13 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J