High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan · 2025

Rajpal Singh Son Of Late Shri Jasvinder Singh, Resident Of Village 2, D-D Post Delma, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Erstwhile Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Anoopgarh Depot, Anoopgarh, Rajasthan. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 01/08/2025

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metro-II (for short ‘the first Appellate Court’) in appeal No. 14/2019 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (West), Jaipur Metro in civil suit No. 199/2015 by which the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the termination order No. 170 dated 09.01.2015 as illegal and void [2025:RJ-JP:29260] (2 of 5) [CSA-124/2023] and held the plaintiff entitled to be continuous in service of the defendants uninterruptedly and to get all service benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration against the defendants mentioning therein that due to death of his father, plaintiff was appointed on compassionate ground on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 7,900/- per month for two years’ probation period vide order dated 24.09.2013. It was alleged that on

12.06.2014, when the inspection was carried out by the vigilance team, it was found that three passengers were travelling without ticket. It was also alleged that the plaintiff misbehaved with the vigilance team and he had already charged fare from them, whereas the plaintiff never misbehaved with the vigilance team and no passenger was travelling in the bus without ticket. Despite that without conducting preliminary inquiry, a charge-sheet was issued to the plaintiff on 22.06.2014 and inquiry officer was appointed and on 09.01.2015 his services were terminated, which was illegal because principle of natural justice was not followed during the inquiry.

3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that services of the plaintiff were never satisfactory. While terminating his services, no illegality was committed. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. vk;k oknh lsoki`Fkd vkns’k Øekad 170 fnukad 09-01-2015 xSjdkuwuh] voS/kkfud ,oa U;kf;d uSlfxZd fl)karksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLr] [2025:RJ-JP:29260] (3 of 5) [CSA-124/2023] izHkko’kwU;] csvlj ?kksf"kr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh mijksDr ?kks"k.kkuqlkj izfroknhx.k dh lsok esa yxkrkj fcuk fdlh vojks/k ds leLr osru ,oa lsok laca/kh ykHkksa lfgr cuk gksus dh ?kks"k.kk djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k tokc okn&i= ds pj.k la[;k 6 ds vuqlkj oknh dks dksbZ okndkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gS\ 4- vk;k oknh dk okn i;kZIr U;k;’kqYd ds vHkko esa [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vk;k tokc okn&i= ds pj.k la[;k 9 ds vuqlkj okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS\ 6- vuqrks"k \

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Rajpal Singh and got exhibited certain documents. Defendants had not adduced any evidence in their defence.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2019, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the termination order No. 170 dated 09.01.2015 as illegal and void and held the plaintiff entitled to be continuous in service of the defendants uninterruptedly and to get all service benefits.

7. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 09.05.2019 by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants because proper opportunity of [2025:RJ-JP:29260] (4 of 5) [CSA-124/2023] hearing was granted to the plaintiff and plaintiff was under the probation period, so, no inquiry was required to be conducted, but the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have committed an error. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal.

10. No one has put in appearance for the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments.

11. The trial Court while decreeing the plaintiff’s suit observed that from a perusal of the punishment order (Ex.6) it was not tangibly clear that any preliminary inquiry was conducted in relation to the charges levelled against the plaintiff and an opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to defend his case during the course of said inquiry. From a perusal of the file, it also revealed that no notice was ever issued to the plaintiff nor an opportunity of hearing was granted to him to defend his case. In this view of the matter, it was amply clear that during the course of departmental inquiry, no opportunity of hearing was given to him to defend his case, as a result of which, none of the charge was proved. The appellate court is in unison with the findings recorded by the trial Court. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below. I find no reason to take a contrary view than the view taken by both the courts below. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court have not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. So, present appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed as no substantial question of law is [2025:RJ-JP:29260] (5 of 5) [CSA-124/2023] framed in the memo of appeal. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ritu/89 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J