Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 613 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan Sharma v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

2007-03-21

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.10.2007 (annexure-5) whereby he has been asked to deposit Rs. 75082/- on account of loss of tickets in the Bag by leaving the same in the Bus. 2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was working as Conductor, Khetri Depot, when the petitioner was discharging his duties, he lost the Bag containing various tickets at Sindhi Camp Bus Stand in respect of which, an FIR was also lodged wherein this fact has been mentioned that he went to toilet and when returned back, the Bag was not found. Further case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid tickets have not been misused by any one and it is a simple case of loss of Stationary. 3. The respondents have filed reply and submitted therein that the petitioner has committed gross negligence by not keeping the Bag of tickets in a proper manner, but there is neither mention of the fact that on account of loss of tickets financial loss has been caused to the corporation nor the tickets lost have been misused. 4. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken all D the precaution, but still the Bag has been lost for the reason beyond his control. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not taken the proper care and was negligent in not keeping the Bag in a proper way, he should handover the Bag to some other responsible employee of the Corporation while going to the toilet. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 7. I am of the view that the reason for leaving the Bag for going to toilet, is the reason beyond his control. Further considering the other fact of not causing any financial loss to the Corporation and the petitioner has been retired on 31.8.2005, I am of the view that recovery be not made from the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order, dated 23.10.2002 is quashed. The petitioner be given all consequential pensionary benefits.Writ Petition Allowed. *******