Bharatpur v. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport

Judgment

1. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Lohagarh Agar, Bharatpur.

3. The Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/09/2025

1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 27.08.2012, whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2012, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in respondent- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 22.12.1983, where his services were regularized on 20.01.1986. However, after rendering services of [2025:RJ-JP:37639] (2 of 5) [CW-14369/2013] more than 27 years when the petitioner became ill and on account of his illness, he could not attend his duties, thereafter, a charge- sheet dated 03.02.2012 was issued by the respondent- Corporation, levelling allegations of willful and unauthorized absence against the petitioner from 21.10.2010 to 19.03.2012. It is submitted that on account of illness, the petitioner could not even file reply to the charge-sheet; nor could he participate in the inquiry proceedings. However, in quite arbitrary manner and ignoring the fact that the petitioner has rendered services of more than 27 years in respondent-Corporation prior to the period of alleged absence, major penalty of removal from service has been imposed against the petitioner. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was not heard on merits and was dismissed only on the technical ground of being time barred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and thereafter, the legal representatives of the petitioner have been taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, merely on the ground of willful absence, the penalty of removal from service is not warranted as there are no allegations of committing any embezzlement or causing any financial loss to the respondent- Corporation. Learned counsel further submits that even if, on account of non-participation in the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has been guilty of charges, even then looking to the long services of the petitioner with the respondent-Corporation, penalty of removal from service is totally disproportionate to the [2025:RJ-JP:37639] (3 of 5) [CW-14369/2013] guilt and therefore, being excessive is liable to be reduced. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been examined by the Appellate Authority on merits and hyper technical view was taken to dismiss the appeal only on the ground of being barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioner, therefore, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the penalty order as well as the appellate order.

5. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition in order to defend the penalty order as well as appellate order. It was submitted that as the petitioner has remained willfully and deliberately absent from duties for a period of more than one and half years, therefore, under these circumstances, charge-sheet dated 03.02.2012 was issued. It was submitted that being employee of the Corporation, the petitioner who was working as driver, was under an obligation to attend his duties regularly and on account of his unauthorised absence, heavy loss was caused to the respondent-Corporation as on account of there being regular absence of driver, their bus could not be operated on the assigned route.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the justification given by the petitioner that he was not well and therefore could not attend his duties, is not supported by any legitimate evidence. The medical certificates submitted by the petitioner as a proof of his illness were not issued in accordance with the Rules as after absence of 30 days, in case, an employee claims to take medical leave, he is required to produce certificate [2025:RJ-JP:37639] (4 of 5) [CW-14369/2013] issued by the duly constituted medical board, which has never been placed by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also indicated that the impugned penalty order bears the details of as many as 35 different charges-sheets/penalties which were awarded to the petitioner during his service tenure of 27 years. It is submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner would give sufficient indication that the petitioner was habitual absentee and has never cared for the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. The petitioner even did not file any reply to the charge-sheet, nor participated in the inquiry proceedings. Hence, under these circumstances, the charges were proved by the management before the Inquiry Officer by placing sufficient evidence on record and on the basis of entire available material, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the order of removal from service, which cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal against the penalty order should have been filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Rules and admittedly such appeal was not filed within limitation period prescribed, hence, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and more particularly in the matters of disciplinary inquiry is extremely limited. The penalty order can be examined while exercising powers of judicial review only in the cases, where there is [2025:RJ-JP:37639] (5 of 5) [CW-14369/2013] manifest and apparent violation of principles of natural justice or non-compliance of the disciplinary rules, or even where the penalty imposed against the delinquent employee is excessive and disproportionate to the extent to which it touches the conscious of the Court. In the instant case, the record of the petitioner is conspicuous, where 35 penalties were awarded to him in the service tenure of 27 years and even in respect of impugned penalty order, the petitioner never cared to file reply to the charge-sheet or to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Hence, under these circumstances, looking to the limited scope of jurisdiction, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.

10. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. DIVYA /41 (ANAND SHARMA),J