BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Corporation, Rajasthan Roadways Head Quarter, Jaipur

: Mr. M.S. Raghav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/05/2025

1. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30.08.1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as award dated

13.09.2013, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one charge-sheet dated

21.08.1991 was issued to the petitioner containing charges that on inspection of the vehicle on 17.07.1991 as many as 13 passengers were found without tickets despite the fact that they had paid the freight to the petitioner. Pursuant to the above charge-sheet, enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer after concluding the inquiry, came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been fully proved. [2025:RJ-JP:19277] (2 of 5) [CW-1462/2014]

3. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed order dated

30.08.1995 whereby, penalty of withholding the five annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

4. Further thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred by the appropriate Government vide reference dated 16.03.2000 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Terms of reference were as to whether penalty order dated 30.08.1995 imposed upon the petitioner was valid or not and, if not, for what relief the workman is entitled to.

5. The aforesaid reference has been answered by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 13.09.2013 against the petitioner-workman.

6. Mr. M.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the penalty order dated 30.08.1995 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority by ignoring the significant fact that proper opportunity of hearing and defence was not afforded by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner. Even after inquiry, copy of inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, which has deprived him of his right to make a representation against findings of the Inquiry Officer. It has also been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned penalty order has utterly failed to apply its own mind and has simply relied upon the inquiry report. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before imposing major penalty of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority has also not given any good sufficient reasons for choosing the said major penalty and as such there was [2025:RJ-JP:19277] (3 of 5) [CW-1462/2014] no application of mind on the question of quantum of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority.

7. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the penalty order itself the Disciplinary Authority has recorded that for want of evidence, no matter regarding past penalties in the service records is made out, even then a harsh penalty of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner, which is causing serious prejudice and financial loss to the petitioner.

8. I have considered the record of the writ petition as well as perused the impugned award.

9. It would reveal by perusing award dated 13.09.2013 that prior to passing the award, the Tribunal has considered the question of fairness of the inquiry where proper opportunity of hearing was given to both sides. Thereafter, vide order dated

23.01.2013, the Tribunal has declared the inquiry to be fair and proper. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Tribunal, whereby inquiry was held to be fair and proper, has never been challenged by the petitioner.

10. Under such circumstances, where order dated 23.01.2013 earlier passed by the Tribunal was not challenged by the petitioner, at this stage, he cannot be allowed to raise any objection with regard to fairness of the inquiry. The arguments raised by the petitioner with regard to not affording proper opportunity of hearing or not to the petitioner, are not available to him, moreso, where the inquiry has already been held to be fair [2025:RJ-JP:19277] (4 of 5) [CW-1462/2014] and proper by the Tribunal and such order has never been put to challenge by the petitioner.

11. Vide award dated 13.09.2013, after holding the inquiry as fair and proper, the learned Tribunal was simply required to consider the question of quantum of punishment only.

12. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Disciplinary Authority has recorded in its order dated

30.08.1995 that there was no record with regard to earlier penalties imposed upon the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority has also not applied its mind or the point of choice of penalty. In order to press his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Shri Ram Yadav' reported in 1995(3) WLC Page-16.

13. Fair reading of the impugned award dated 30.09.2013 would reveal that before passing the award, the learned Tribunal has given fair opportunity of hearing to both the sides to address on the point of quantum of punishment. In this process, the respondent- Corporation has placed on record the documents to show that earlier also as many as on six occasions, the petitioner has been penalised for committing misconduct and as such the petitioner was habitual of violating the Standing Orders and Rules and Regulations of the Corporation.

14. The petitioner has utterly failed to counter the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard and has not rebutted the fact that earlier six penalties were awarded to him by the respondent- Corporation. Impugned award also [2025:RJ-JP:19277] (5 of 5) [CW-1462/2014] reveals that there is proper application of mind on the choice of penalty by the Tribunal after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

15. In the light of the antecedents of the petitioner, where in a short term of service, prior to penalty in question, earlier six penalties were awarded to him, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority was unjustified in any manner, by awarding penalty of withholding 5 grade increments with cumulative effect.

16. This Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error, whatsoever, in passing the award dated 13.09.2013.

17. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed.

18. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. DIVYA /243 (ANAND SHARMA),J