JUDGMENT 1. - Conductor/Driver Incentive Scheme, 2004 (Green Card Scheme) circulated by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') is under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. Salient features of the Green Card Scheme issued vide order dated March 31, 2004 are thus : (a) The targets for all schedule/services conducted from different depots shall be determined at the Head Office; (b) A conductor shall have to take a green card enbloc for a period of six months; (c) After issuance of green card a survey shall be carried out by the inspection team for assessing the actual passenger load on the concerned schedule; (d) No other inspection team shall inspect the vehicle of the green card holding conductor; (e) Only the inspection team authorised by the Chief Manager or Zonal General Manager shall be competent to inspect the vehicle of the green card holding conductor and if during the course of such -inspection ticketless travellers are detected in that event action shall be taken in accordance with the standing orders; (f) Where additional revenue is generated in excess of the fixed targets in that event 45% of the additional revenue shall go to the conductor, 35% of such additional revenue shall go to the driver and the remaining 20%' shall be deposited in the corporation fund/account. The computation of the incentive amount shall be done at the end of the month whereupon 50% of the incentive shall be paid in cash and the remaining 50% shall be paid upon expiry of the six months period; (g) In case there is deficit in revenue generation as compared to the target fixed such deficit shall be computed thrice a month and shall be adjusted against the additional revenue generated during the 10 day period. Any deficit in revenue generation from sale of tickets shall be recovered from the concerned conductor; (h) Even where green card is opted for a particular schedule/service there shall be no variation either in time of departure/arrival or the speed at which the vehicle may be driven; (i) Where more than one person opts for green card in respect of a particular schedule/service in that event a conductor who undertakes to generate higher revenue shall be given a preference; (j) The corporation may increase the targets at any point of time; (k) If the green card holding conductor becomes absent for any reason and a substitute conductor is posted in that event any deficit in revenue generation shall be recovered from the green card holding conductor. 3. On April 12, 2004 yet another order as issued by RSRTC amending clause 3 and 7 of the circular dated March 31, 2004. It was inter alia provided in the order that even where green card holder goes on leave his nominated substitute may be deputed as far as possible, but there shall be no remission in the matter of target realisation on that count. 4. Vide order dated May 21, 2004 further instructions and guidelines in respect of green card scheme were issued. It was inter alia provided that where the inspection team detects any ticket less travelling in a vehicle having a green card holder conductor the proceedings may be dropped by imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- and thereafter the target for that route/schedule may be enhanced by 20%. 5. In supersession of earlier orders the RSRTC issued the order dated July 12, 2004 the salient features of the modified scheme as circulated are as under : (a) The Conductor/Driver Incentive Scheme commencing from April 2004 shall continue as such; (b) The target for all schedule/service shall be fixed at the level of Head Office and a Committee constituted for this purpose shall be competent to revise the targets; (c) The green card opted for by a conductor for a period of six months shall not be changed. Any conductor may however, take a green card for a period of one month whereafter in the subsequent month the green card may be given to any other conductor. Any conductor may however, take a green card for a period of one month whereafter in the subsequent month the green card may be given to any other conductor. Any person who has taken a green card and wants to surrender the same may submit an application within ten days to the General Manager who may accept surrender; (d) After issuance of a green card the concerned route/schedule shall be inspected every fortnight to assess the actual passenger load; (e) Only a survey team constituted for the purpose shall be competent to conduct survey/inspection of route/schedule for which the green card has been taken; (f) Where a green card holder conductor avails leave his nominated conductor as far as possible may be substituted in his place but even where nominated conductors is not available there shall be no remission in the target; (g) Revenue generated in excess of the target shall be distributed among the conductor, driver and the corporation in the ratio 45:35:20. 50% of the incentive amount shall be paid to the conductor and the driver at the end of the month and the remaining 50% shall be paid at the end of six months; (h) Any deficit in the target shall be recovered from the conductor on daily basis; (i) Corporation may enhance the target from time to time; (j) Disciplinary proceedings initiated against green card holding conductors after 01.03.2004 in the matter of ticket less travelling shall be dropped. In case, it is found by the survey team that two or more tarvellers are travelling without tickets disciplinary action shall be taken against the conductor. 6. On July 20, 2004 a meeting of Chief Managers was convened where a decision was arrived at that conductors who do not opt for green card shall not be sent on any route. It was also decided that upon issuance of green card the concerned conductor/driver competing with private motor operators may carry excess passenger in their vehicles. Where no green card is taken by any conductor the concerned driver may be authorised to take the bus without any conductor against an incentive of Rs. 5/- per ticket. 7. Vide order dated July 31, 2004, it was provided that where a conductor does not take a green card he shall not be permitted to work on any service/schedule. Where no green card is taken by any conductor the concerned driver may be authorised to take the bus without any conductor against an incentive of Rs. 5/- per ticket. 7. Vide order dated July 31, 2004, it was provided that where a conductor does not take a green card he shall not be permitted to work on any service/schedule. Vide order dated August 4, 2004, it was provided that the ..conductors who have been reluctant to take any green card as also the conductors who have surrendered their green card are thus not only being threatened with disciplinary action but are also being treated as absent in the daily duty charts. 8. According to the petitioners the green card scheme is arbitrary and unconstitutional and it deserves to be quashed. 9. The respondent RSRTC filed return only in writ petition No.5055/2004 and counsel for the parties agreed to read it in all the writ petitions. The RSRTC in the reply raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the petitions. It is contended that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'), as the petitioners have raised dispute regarding Section 9-A of the ID Act. The issue pertaining in the writ petition in regard to the individual right and when individuals have largely opted for the scheme to a large extent. Further the respondent had implemented such scheme from December, 2001. Therefore the Union cannot take up the issue pertaining to an individual having already opted for a scheme. The petitioner has challenged the policy decision of the respondent, while in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court a policy decision of the State is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore the writ petition deserves to be quashed.The respondent has further stated that the matter pertaining to an employee covered by the Standing Order or ID Act is necessarily to be adjudicated upon by the mechanism provided under the ID Act. It is further submitted that the policy decision has been taken after a long exercise. The green card scheme was initially applied in the year 2001 and subjected to certain changes in December, 2002. After making certain changes the instant green card scheme has been implemented to reduce the corrupt practices and to enhance the profit of the RSRTC. It is further submitted that the policy decision has been taken after a long exercise. The green card scheme was initially applied in the year 2001 and subjected to certain changes in December, 2002. After making certain changes the instant green card scheme has been implemented to reduce the corrupt practices and to enhance the profit of the RSRTC. In case if a conductor do not cooperate with the new policy the Driver had played dual responsibility, for the purpose of continuing the scheme. Initially some resentment was shown by those who were in the habit of ulterior means, but now the Corporation has restored to its normal service and there by could operate normal services now. The action of the respondent is not in violation of any provision of the Act nor the rules. The question of violation of Section 9-A of the ID Act does not arise. The respondent has not reduced the pay scale of the conductors or has not taken away any other benefits, rather they have been given incentive if one is ready t work hard and honestly. The Corporation has deputed an agency to record datas of clandestine operation which would be beneficial to stop drainage of State Revenue as well as improve upto the strength of passengers in the Corporation buses. As such the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners have criticised the green card scheme from various angles. My attention has been drawn towards various orders issued by the RSRTC and the provisions contained in The Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Industrial Employment (Stand..lg Orders) Act, 1946, the Rajasthan Road Transport Service Prevention of Ticketless Travel Act, 1975, Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent canvassed that the Corporation had undertaken the process to improve upon the services, revenue and facilities so as to benefit the passengers to the maximum. While undertaking the process of finalisation of the policy, it was revealed that on account of various defects in checking, element of corruption exist at many` levels. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent canvassed that the Corporation had undertaken the process to improve upon the services, revenue and facilities so as to benefit the passengers to the maximum. While undertaking the process of finalisation of the policy, it was revealed that on account of various defects in checking, element of corruption exist at many` levels. Hence predominantly, the Corporation has taken it their policy to overcome the corruption which was otherwise been focused in the complaints circulated by more than 1000 conductors to the H.E. the President of India, Hon. Prime Minister and many others. Hence the object of the policy under challenge is to curtail corruption which approximately resulting in drainage of around 70 lacs per day on account of present checking system and on other related grounds. At the same time the effort was to increase the facilities to the passengers by reducing the fare more importantly when all State Transport Corporations are increasing the fare, the respondent Corporation has taken a decision to reduce the same heavily by 10 to 30%. Thus it is to serve the public in a better way, the policy was framed. It is further contended that the public policy under challenge is framed after keeping flexibility in action and to remove any difficulty in its operation and for that purpose even each conductor has been given opportunity to point out his difficulties which includes even flexibility in fixing the targets for any route given to the conductors. The policy decision dated July 12, 2004 was framed in supersession to all earlier orders and now while framing the policy, it has been kept in mind that back bone of the Corporation i.e. Conductors and drivers be benefited to the maximum, hence not only clause imposed of penalty of Rs. 500/- and other penal consequences so exist earlier have been taken away in new policy and at the same time, ticket checking staff earlier deployed has been completely withdrawn. The conductors and drivers have been given more revenue and liberties so as to see that their interest is safeguarded to the maximum. It is further contended that the Union and individuals have submitted before the Court that by virtue of the new policy, the conductors would suffer, however for that purpose, no document was produced to show a single case of putting a conductor in loss. It is further contended that the Union and individuals have submitted before the Court that by virtue of the new policy, the conductors would suffer, however for that purpose, no document was produced to show a single case of putting a conductor in loss. In fact by virtue of the new policy, if the conductor with the support of drivers works hard in carrying out the passengers to the maximum then as a consequence of which, the conductors would now be getting incentive to the tune of 45% of the Revenue over and above the fixed target and at the same time Driver would get 35% of excess revenue. The combination of incentive is fixed keeping in mind the illegal private bus operation on various routes, hence with a view to have a feeling of combination, this incentive is given to the driving fleet of the Corporation and in that regard also it has been made totally flexible to see that a conductor may get benefit of incentive to its maximum. Hence, a clause of adjustment of revenue is being kept. Thereby in case of receipt of lessor revenue on a particular date, he would not required to suffer on that account, if on other day, gets excess revenue because a clause of flexibility, adjustment between lessor revenue and excess revenue is being made so that those days can be right of in which conductors get lessor revenue for one or other reason and if he is having excess revenue on other days, then his lessor Revenue would be right of and the conductor would not be required to do anything. For illustration of consecutive dates, received by the conductor is say 6000/-, 6500/- and 7000/- as against his target of Rs. 7500/- and on other consecutive days in a month, if the same conductor gets revenue of Rs. 8000/-, 9000/- and 9500/- as against the targetted income of Rs. 7500/- as mentioned above then even after receipt of lessor revenue on other days, the said conductor is having surplus of Rs. 1000/- on an average. Thus the clause for average income is being kept to see that a conductor may get benefit of incentive scheme as far as possible leaving only those who are either not dedicated towards the work or may be corrupt. 1000/- on an average. Thus the clause for average income is being kept to see that a conductor may get benefit of incentive scheme as far as possible leaving only those who are either not dedicated towards the work or may be corrupt. The drivers have also been given incentive so that he may cooperate with the conductor in getting maximum passengers. Moreso when there is a competition with illegal operation of private buses. Thus the drivers are getting supportive incentive in matching with the conductors, as a outcome of the above policy, an honest, dedicated and hardworking employee can get heavy benefits from those incentive, yet the Union and individuals have challenged the beneficial scheme of the conductors which is against a public oriented policy. It is further contended that as a outcome of the policy under challenge the conductors and drivers who opted for the green card have received an handsome amount by putting their hard labour, leaving those who are opposing this policy. The effect of feeling of competition with operation of illegal private buses, the revenue income of the Corporation per km. basis has gone 1.5 times above and therefore there would be reduction in fare to pass on this benefit to the public/passengers and at the same time, the benefit is to the conductors as well as to the Corporation. 12. It is next contended that the policy is not to generate profit for the Corporation but to curtail the corruption and to pass on the revenue to the passengers and for that purpose, even the conductors have been given heavy amount towards incentive over and above their wages. Thus neither any provisions of the Transport Corporation Act, nor Transport Workers (Standing Orders) Act is being violated. The payment of wages is applicable only to those employees who are receiving less than 1600/- and therefore, those provision has no application in the present matter. Thus there exist no violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus neither any provisions of the Transport Corporation Act, nor Transport Workers (Standing Orders) Act is being violated. The payment of wages is applicable only to those employees who are receiving less than 1600/- and therefore, those provision has no application in the present matter. Thus there exist no violation of the provisions of the Act. Only the objection of the petitioner is that in case of receipt of less revenue, the conductor has to make the payment of the same, however, its apprehension is without any basis because no document is being produced regarding any deficit amount by the conductors and infact a mis-leading statement is being made in that regard by producing two documents which in fact are the deposition of the amount of fare collection from the passengers. Hence when an employee gets incentive to the extent of 45% of collection of fare over and above the targetted amount, it is obvious that he has to discharge his duties sincerely and honestly because incentive can be a outcome of hard and honest working only. 13. Interpreting the judgment rendered in (1) Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC (SBCWP No.3285/2002 decided on February 4, 2003), (reported in 2003(2) RLR 2571 , learned counsel for the respondent urged that the said judgment has a reference to initiation disciplinary enquiry against the conductor which was on account of less receipt of revenue. Though in the earlier policy no such provision was existing and thereby the Hon'ble Court only quashed the disciplinary action taking against the employee. No such clause as was dealt with by the Hon'ble Court exist in the impugned policy which is totally modified policy than what was existing in 2001 and so far as the observation made by the Hon'ble Court is against the honest and dedicated working of the conductor is concerned same need not to be elaborated as the present policy is dedicated to those conductors alone. 14. In respect of the judgment in case of (2) Raj. State Roadways Employees Union Barmer Vs. 14. In respect of the judgment in case of (2) Raj. State Roadways Employees Union Barmer Vs. State & Ors., 1988(1) RLR 420 , learned counsel for respondent argued that the said decision was given in regard to a wholesome decision of the Corporation of not keeping conductors whereas in the present policy, there exist no such decision, rather the settled position is to accompany a conductor and it is on certain contingency when a conductor as well as alternative conductor is not available then to ply the bus without the conductor in such contingency so as to avoid public inconvenience and in that regard, the recent order dated August 7, 2004 provides total flexibility by using even those conductors who are not having green card till the targets are re-assessed. Thus even for time being, the requirement of holding green card is being relaxed as per requirement and discretion of the competent authority. Thus the judgment is not applicable because there was no decision of policy to ply buses without conductor even if they are available. Rather, such appoints is made only in certain emergency and contingency and keeping in mind the interest of passengers. 15. Learned counsel further urged that responsibility has been fixed on all the employees to work sincerely and to provide services of the Corporation and in that regard the Chairman of the Corporation has taken task to improve upon the working of the worst effecting area of target namely Hanumangarh, Ganganagar, Bikaner and Sanganer. Thereby all the employees of the Corporation have now been given working task of judicial consequences in case of lapse. 16. Learned counsel also contended that firstly the provisions of Section 9-A of the ID Act is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and no issue can be raised in view of the judgment in case of RSRTC Vs. Krishna Kant . Secondly the service conditions as specified in the schedule appended to the ID Act are not being affected. 17. Krishna Kant . Secondly the service conditions as specified in the schedule appended to the ID Act are not being affected. 17. It is further contended that the policy has already been adopted by the majority of the conductors resulting in heavy revenue earning to the Corporation with curtailment of leakage of revenue on account of corruption coupled with heavy benefit in terms of money is being passed on to the conductors and drivers carrying out the present policy and thereby the majority of the conductors have no complaints against the present system. Rather the challenge seem to have been promoted by those members who are beneficial of the old system which is mainly checking staff. 18. 1 have pondered over the rival submissions. 19. The respondent RSRTC undoubtedly is duty bound to provide checks to erase corrupt practices and to implement the scheme for enhancing the profit, but such scheme should not transgress the relevant statutory provisions. Mandatory provisions of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (for short 1975 Act') which was enacted to provide for prevention of ticketless travel on the motor vehicles operated by the RSRTC, cannot be ignored. 1975 Act received assent of the President on March 25, 1975 and it was amended by Rajasthan Act 18 of 1987 w.e.f. April 24, 1987. 20. According to section 3 of 1975 Act the conductor on duty shall charge fare from every person who enters or remains in motor vehicle with intent to travel and upon payment of fare, supply to such person a ticket containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Section 4 of 1975 Act provides that no person shall enter or remain in any motor vehicle for the purpose of travelling therein unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket. Section 5 of 1975 Act mandates that every person travelling by a motor vehicle shall, on requisition of the conductor or any other servant of the corporation, authorised in this behalf, present his pass or ticket to such conductor or servant for examination at or before the end of the journey for which the pass or ticket was issued. 21. Section 5 of 1975 Act mandates that every person travelling by a motor vehicle shall, on requisition of the conductor or any other servant of the corporation, authorised in this behalf, present his pass or ticket to such conductor or servant for examination at or before the end of the journey for which the pass or ticket was issued. 21. Punishment for travelling without proper pass or ticket is provided in section 6 of 1975 Act, which reads as under : "(1) If a person (a) enters or remains in a motor vehicle or in any way travels therein without proper pass or ticket in contravention of section 4; or (b) while trevelling by a motor vehicle or while remaining in it or having alighted from it, fails or refuses to present for examination pass or ticket immediately on requisition being made therefor under section 5; or (c) uses or attempts to use with intent to defraud the Corporation as invalid ticket within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g) of the explanation to section 8 or a single pass or a single ticket which has already been used on a previous journey, or in the case of a return ticket, a half thereof which has already been used, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees or with both and shall also be liable to pay the excess charge mentioned in sub-section (2) in addition to the ordinary single fare for the distance which he has travelled without proper pass or where there is any doubt as to the place from which he started his journey without proper pass or ticket, the fare from the place from which the motor vehicle originally started or if the tickets of other persons travelling by the same motor vehicle have been examined since the original starting of the motor vehicle, the ordinary single fare from the place where the tickets were last examined. (2) The excess charge referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equivalent to the ordinary single fare referred to in that sub-section or five rupees whichever is greater. (2) The excess charge referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equivalent to the ordinary single fare referred to in that sub-section or five rupees whichever is greater. (3) Where a person liable to pay any sum as an ordinary fare and the excess charge under this section fails or refuses to pay the same on demand being made therefor under this Act, any servant of the corporation appointed by it in this behalf may apply to the Judicial Magistrate competent under section 11 for the recovery of the said sum which shall be payable and recoverable as if it were a fine, and the said Judicial Magistrate if satisfied that the sum is payable and recoverable under this Act, he shall order it to be so recovered, and may order that the person liable for payment shall in default of payment suffer imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven days." 22. Section 7 of 1975 Act provides as under : "Entering a motor vehicle in motion or otherwise improperly travelling thereby without pass or ticket (1) If a person holding a proper pass or ticket, enters or leaves to attempts or enter or leave, any motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in motion, or elsewhere than by the entry or exit door appointed by the corporation for the passengers to enter or leave the motor vehicle, he shall be liable to punishment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (2) If a person without holding a proper pass or ticket, travels by any motor vehicle while occupying any place on the roof, steps or foot board of any motor vehicle or on the engine or by the side of the driver or only any other part of the motor vehicle not intended for use of passengers, he shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and may be removed therefrom by the conductor or the driver of the motor vehicle or by any other servant of the corporation authorised to do so in this behalf. (3) Any person who is liable to the penalties provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall also be liable to pay the excess fares mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 6 and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall apply to the recovery of excess fare from such person or to the punishment of such person by imprisonment in default of payment of excess fare." 23. According to Section 8 of 1975 Act if a conductor or any other person authorised by the corporation, whose duty is to charge fare and upon payment of fare to supply a ticket to a person who travels or intends to travel in a motor vehicle, negligently or wilfully omits to charge fare or supply proper ticket to such person or supplies to him an invalid ticket when demanded by such person, he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both in addition to any disciplinary action for such misconduct, which is liable to undergo under the conditions of his service. 24. As per section 11 of 1975 Act the offence shall be cognizable and shall be triable by the court of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed or through whose local jurisdiction the offender passed during the course of the journey by the motor vehicle on which the offence was committed. 25. Section 12 of 1975 Act provides that the amount of fine, excess charges and fare recovered under the 1975 Act shall be credited to the Corporation. Out of the amount received under sub-section (1), the corporation shall be liable to pay tax levied under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act 18 of 1959). 26. Section 15 of 1975 Act gives power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of 1975 Act. 27. It is now to be seen as to whether the provisions of 1975 Act have been taken into consideration by respondent RSRTC at the time of framing the green card scheme. 26. Section 15 of 1975 Act gives power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of 1975 Act. 27. It is now to be seen as to whether the provisions of 1975 Act have been taken into consideration by respondent RSRTC at the time of framing the green card scheme. As already noticed in the order dated July 12, 2004 the RSRTC directed as under : "Revenue generated in excess of the target shall be distributed among the conductor, driver and the corporation in the ratio 45:35:20. 50% of the incentive amount shall be paid to the conductor and the driver at the end of the month and the remaining 50% shall be paid at the end of six months." This direction flouts section 12 of 1975 Act, which provides that the amount of fine, excess charges and fare recovered under 1975 Act shall be credited to the Corporation and out of the amount received under sub-section (1) the RSRTC shall be liable to pay tax levied under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959. 28. The order dated July 12, 2004 further provides that Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against green card holding conductors after March 1, 2004 in the matter of ticketless travelling shall be dropped. In case, it is found by the survey team that two or more tavellers are travelling without tickets disciplinary action shall be taken against the conductor. This direction violates the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of 1975 Act. 29. It also appears from the material on record that when the RSRTC framed Green Card Scheme in the year 2001 some of the conductors who submitted their consent letters, failed to achieve the target fixed for the route and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. Those conductors filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.3285/2002 (Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. 29. It also appears from the material on record that when the RSRTC framed Green Card Scheme in the year 2001 some of the conductors who submitted their consent letters, failed to achieve the target fixed for the route and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. Those conductors filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.3285/2002 (Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Anr.), [reported in 2003(2) RLR 257] which came to be partly allowed by this court on February 4, 2003, while quashing the charge sheets dated February 27, 2002 issued to conductors, this court observed as under :(Para 12) "Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents issued only notice to the petitioners with charge- sheet and in that enquiry the petitioners can certainly come forward with their pleas justifying the non-achieving of the target and if will satisfy, they will be exonerated and if, they do not have any explanation for not achieving the target then this will certainly be due to poor performance of work of the conductor. Hence in this case, the petitioners have challenged the, very authority of the issuance of the charge-sheet on the ground that issuance of charge-sheet is without jurisdiction because of the reason that the charge-sheet contains an allegation of lowing down in performance of work by the respondents and the non-achieving of the target in the scheme is not a misconduct for which any enquiry can be held to punish the petitioners. Therefore, mere non-achieving of the target itself cannot be a ground to proceed against the petitioners. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no reason for authority to proceed only on the ground of non-achieving of target b the petitioners in the scheme under the provision of sub-clause (t) of clause 31 of the Standing Orders, therefore, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed." 30. It is also evident from the record that the RSRTC, at the time of framing the Green Card Scheme failed to scan the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1990. A look at sub clause (xx) of clause 2.23 of 1990 Rules provides that the Driver shall not ply a stage carriage or a contract carriage for more than six passengers unless there is a duly licenced conductor on duty in the vehicle. A look at sub clause (xx) of clause 2.23 of 1990 Rules provides that the Driver shall not ply a stage carriage or a contract carriage for more than six passengers unless there is a duly licenced conductor on duty in the vehicle. Sub clause (xxiii) of clause 2.23 of 1990 Rules lays down that when a vehicle is required to cross an unmanned railway level crossing, the conductor alights from the vehicle to guide its safe crossing. 31. Sub clause 3.9 of 1990 Rules stipulates the duties and conduct of the conductor of stage carriages. It requires that the conductor shall not allow any person to be carried in the stage carriage in excess of the seating capacity without there being given a sufficient and good reason, refuse to carry any passenger who tendered the legal fare, shall not allow any passenger to be carried in any stage carriage without payment of the legal fare, shall not cause or allow anything to be placed in the vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct the entry to exit of passenger, shall issue a ticket on payment of legal fare of freight, shall be on the look out for other motor vehicle approaching from behind and effectively sign their app.oach to the drivers, shall help the infant, disabled, pregnant ladies, old age passengers and ladies with child in arm, to board and alight the bus. Clause 3.2 of 1990 Rules imposes a duty on the conductor apart from the duties mentioned in clause 3.9 to attend on the passengers and would be responsible for the observance of the provisions of 1990 Rules. Clause further lays down that where in an emergency it becomes difficult for the permit holder to provide for a conductor of stage carriage, or where a conductor on duty, for reasons beyond his control, cannot perform his duties, the driver of the stage carriage may for a period not exceeding one month act as a conductor of stage carriage without holding the conductors licence. 32. It is averred in the return and canvassed on behalf of RSRTC that Green Card policy has been framed to overcome the Corruption which was focused in the complaints circulated by more than one thousand conductors to the various dignitaries. 32. It is averred in the return and canvassed on behalf of RSRTC that Green Card policy has been framed to overcome the Corruption which was focused in the complaints circulated by more than one thousand conductors to the various dignitaries. The object behind the policy is to curtail corruption which approximately resulting in drainage is of around 70 lacs per day on account of defecting checking system and other related grounds. It is urged that in order to serve the public in a better way, the policy has been framed. 33. Corruption levels are under discussion throughout the world. PETER EIGEN, Chairman of Transparency International once said-"Corruption levels are perceived to be as high as even in both developed and developing worlds." The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International may show that India is among the most corrupt countries in the world, with a score of only 2.7 out of 10 and rank of 71 among 102 countries in 2002. This is a decline from the 1999 level of 2.9 (69th rank). This dubious distinction is a matter of shame for a country that is the fourth largest economy with an upwardly mobile middle class population of 300 million and which is poised to emerge as an economic giant. In such a situation every step which comes forward to erase corruption has to be welcomed. 34. Normally courts do not interfere with the policy matters of the State. Courts are not intended to run and control the administration of the country. Interference is only called for if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties (Vide Balco Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 ) . 35. Having closely scrutinised the Green Card Scheme, I find that there is no statutory force behind it. As earlier noticed it is only the State of Rajasthan, which has been em owered by Section 15 of 1975 Act to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Act that was enacted for prevention of ticketless travel on the motor vehicles operated by the RSRTC. As earlier noticed it is only the State of Rajasthan, which has been em owered by Section 15 of 1975 Act to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Act that was enacted for prevention of ticketless travel on the motor vehicles operated by the RSRTC. As per Section 12 of 1975 Act amount of fine, excess charges and fare recovered under 1975 Act, has to be credited to the RSRTC and the said amount is liable to pay tax levied under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959. Revenue generated by the RSRTC through Motor Vehicles can not be distributed among the Conductor, Driver ai.d RSRTC in ratio 45:35:20. In the matter of ticketless travelling, the provisions of 1975 Act are attracted and no scheme can be framed in violation of the said provisions. No incentive can be provided by the RSRTC to conductors and Drivers, by flouting the statutory provisions. It is only the State of Rajasthan that can take policy decisions and make suitable amendments in the statutory provisions. 36. For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petitions in the following terms : (i) The RSRTC is directed to review the Conductor/Driver Incentive Scheme 2004 (Green Card Scheme) in view of mandatory provisions of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 and if necessary rules to check corruption and serve the public in better way are required to be framed, the matter may be referred to the State of Rajasthan to make necessary rules in this regard under Section 15 of 1975 Act. (ii) Till necessary Rules are framed under section 15 of 1975 Act, the Conductor/Driver Incentive Scheme 2004 (Green Card Scheme) shall remain inoperative and all the decisions/actions taken under the said scheme shall be treated as nonest. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions Disposed of. *******