Ra- jasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office- Jaipur v. Gangalehari Sharma s/o Sh. Heera Lal Sharma, Aged About

tion, Shrimadhopur Presently Dausa Depot, Resident Of Village Post-Talab, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 26/08/2025 Judgment This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Regular Appeal No.14/2023 (CIS No.53/2023), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (North), Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No.614/2017 (493/2016), partly [2025:RJ-JP:33758] (2 of 5) [CSA-154/2024] decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration, has been partly set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants. Plaintiff mentioned in the suit that he was appointed as a Conductor by the defendants. It was also mentioned that, there was no complaint with regard to work performance of the plaintiff despite only a charge-sheet dated

10.08.2011 was issued to the plaintiff on the ground that on inspection, 3 passengers were found to be without ticket and it was alleged that from them the plaintiff had already charged the fare. The plaintiff submitted that the said charge levelled against him was false. The plaintiff stated that in the bus none of the passenger was traveling without ticket. Copy of the documents related to the charge-sheet was not made available to the plaintiff therefore he could not submit the reply of the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and without giving opportunity to defend his case and opportunity of hearing enquiry was completed. Thereafter, the termination order dated 30.12.2014 was passed. He preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2016. Thus, principles of natural justice was violated during enquiry. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendant filed written statement and stated that plaintiff had not discharged his duty honestly. As many as 69 charge- sheets were issued against him in which he was punished. On

10.07.2011, when the inspection was carried out, 3 passengers were found without tickets. During enquiry, principles of natural justice was followed. It was also mentioned that the civil court had [2025:RJ-JP:33758] (3 of 5) [CSA-154/2024] no jurisdiction to try the suit only and Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ¼1½ vk;k oknh fo#) izfroknhx.k lsoki`Fkd vkns'k Øekad 816 fnukad 30-12-2014 rFkk vihy vkns'k Øekad 337 fnukad 06-09-16 dks xSj dkuwuh] uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)karksa dh ikyuk ugha gksus ls voS/k o 'kwU; gksus rFkk yxkrkj fuxe lsok esa cus jgus vkSj leLr lsok ykHk vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ¼2½ vk;k oknh dk okn i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd ij izLrqr ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼3½ vk;k okni= okndkj.k mRiUu uk gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼4½ vk;k okn U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼5½ vuqrks"k\ To prove its case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Gangalehari Sharma. Defendants got examined as DW1-Pawan Kumar Saini. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2023, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, set aside the termination order being contrary to the principle of natural justice and directed the defendants to pass fresh order within 6 months by following principles of natural justice. [2025:RJ-JP:33758] (4 of 5) [CSA-154/2024] Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 18.05.2023. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated

18.05.2023 instead of passing fresh order within 6 months following the principle of natural justice, declared the termination order No. 816 dated 30.12.2014 and appeal dismissal order No. 337 and 06.09.2016 as null and void and to treat the plaintiff to be continuous in service with consequential benefit. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as appellate Court had committed an error in partly decreeing the suit as well as in partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because only Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the suit. He also stated that principles of natural justice was also followed during enquiry proceeding. So, judgment and decree dated 18.05.2023 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 passed by the appellate court be modified and the present appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit as well as in partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that since the services of the plaintiff were infringed, therefore, the civil court [2025:RJ-JP:33758] (5 of 5) [CSA-154/2024] had jurisdiction to try it. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. The trial Court while partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit, noted that the punishment order dated 30.12.2014 was passed against the plaintiff basing the previous charge sheets which was contrary to the principle of natural justice. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit as well as in partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present 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. TAHIR /44 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J