High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan · 2025

Dinesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, Adarsh Mohan Nagar, Hindaun, Distt. Karoli ----Respondent-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. K. Singhi, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, 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-de- fendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and de- cree dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 9/2006, whereby the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.275/2002 and while partly decreeing the plaintiff’s suit deleted words “with cumulative effect” from the punishment [2025:RJ-JP:25616] (2 of 5) [CSA-417/2007] order No.293 dated 12.09.1997 and the appealable order No.899 dated 16.03.2001. 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 a regular conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). During the service, a charge-sheet was given to the plaintiff for carrying eight passengers without ticket. The defendants vide punishment order dated 12.09.1997 withheld 4 annual increments with cumu- lative effect and forfeited the remaining salary of the suspension period. On an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the appeal was dis- missed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.03.2001. The plaintiff challenged both the punishment orders as well as the appellate order. 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 written statement and denied the aver- ments 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 okn i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds fo#) ikfjr n.Mkns'k dzekad 893 fnukad 18-9-97 o vihyh; vkns'k dzekad 899 fnukad 16-3-2001 xSj dkuwuh voS/kkfud U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLruh; gksdj oknh ds fo#) 'kwU; gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:25616] (3 of 5) [CSA-417/2007] 2- vk;k U;k;ky; gktk dks izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ 3- vuqrks"kA To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Dinesh Chand Sharma and exhibited certain documents. The de- fendants also got examined DW-1 M. L. Batri and exhibited docu- ment. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2005 declared the punishment order No. 293 dated 12.09.1997 & the appeal order No. 899 dated 16.03.2001 as null and void and the plaintiff was held entitled to get all the fi- nancial and services benefits which he could have received in the event said orders would not have been issued. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

10.12.2005, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appel- late court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 allowed the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2005 and while partly decreeing the plaintiff’s suit deleted words “with cumulative effect” from the punishment order dated 12.09.1997 and the appealable order dated

16.03.2001. The present appeal was admitted on 24.10.2018 on the following substantial questions of Law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil courts have jurisdiction in such mat- ters as in the present one, in view of the law laid [2025:RJ-JP:25616] (4 of 5) [CSA-417/2007] down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Zakir Hus- sains case? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of jurisdiction can be looked into even if the same has not been raised in the plead- ings as it goes to the root of the matter” 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 opportu- nity of hearing was granted to him and principle of natural justice was followed. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court be modified. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed re- liance upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Ra- jasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Bhan- war 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 sub- mitted 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. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Cor- poration Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in 2009 4 SCC 299 it has been held that the civil suit is maintainable if principle of [2025:RJ-JP:25616] (5 of 5) [CSA-417/2007] 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 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. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/109