Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2035 (RAJ)

Managing Director, RSRTC v. Smt. Santosh Deedel

2015-12-08

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on an application under Section 151 CPC filed at the instance of plaintiff respondent (hereinafter the plaintiff). 2. The necessary facts to be detailed are that the plaintiff was appointed vide order dated 5.3.2014 by petitioner defendant (hereinafter defendant) on probation for a period of two years. A suit for declaration came to be laid by the plaintiff against defendant RSRTC impugning the remark/ allegation dated 25.12.2014 that she tarried three passengers on RSRTC's bus without proper tickets while working as Conductor thereon on Nagaur-Jaipur route. It was prayed that the Court declare that the remark dated 25.12.2014 was incorrect, false and mala fide and without a charge-sheet being issued to the petitioner and without appropriate enquiry /opportunity of defence thereon, the plaintiff could not be punished by removal of service as conductor with the defendant RSRTC. 3. The suit was accompanied with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Thereon vide ad interim stay order dated 15.1.2015, the trial court directed that on the basis of the remark dated 25.12.2014, no action be taken against her contrary to the terms and conditions of her appointment order. 4. It appears that with regard to the incident of 25.12.2014, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 12.1.2015. The plaintiff filed reply in defence to the said notice on 20.1.2015. On consideration of the reply to the notice and entire service record of the plaintiff, the Chief Manager (Appointment) and Administrative Officer, Deedwana concluded that form the evidence on record that it was established that while plaintiff was working as Conductor on RSRTC's bus on the Nagour-Jaipur route on 25.12.2014 three passengers were found without proper tickets even though the plaintiff had secured Rs. 36/- against the said tickets without reflecting the amount in the ticket book. Finding this to be contrary to the Rules of RSRTC, the plaintiff's condition of service and evidence of the plaintiff's dishonesty, she was found guilty of misconduct and order of dismissal from service was passed on 22.1.2015. In the circumstances, in the pending suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 CPC. Finding this to be contrary to the Rules of RSRTC, the plaintiff's condition of service and evidence of the plaintiff's dishonesty, she was found guilty of misconduct and order of dismissal from service was passed on 22.1.2015. In the circumstances, in the pending suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 CPC. Vide the impugned order dated 16.3.2015, the trial court has directed that the order of the plaintiff's dismissal passed on 22.1.2015 would remain stayed till the final adjudication of the suit and that the status quo ante be restored with the plaintiff being entitled to be reckoned in service of defendant RSRTC as a conductor. 5. Counsel for the defendant, now the petitioner, Mr Vinayak Joshi has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 is vitiated on the obvious ground that it entails granting to the plaintiff final relief at the interim stage. It was further submitted that plaintiff was found guilty of misconduct in an appropriate enquiry conducted by the defendant RSRTC. Only on the conclusion therein being found to be vitiated for reason of perversity or illegality on evidence laid before the trial court the dismissal could set aside prior thereto the effect of the order of dismissal from service could not be negated in the interim. It was submitted that relationship between the plaintiff and defendant being they employee employer was founded on confidence, which the plaintiff had lost and on this count also, the trial court could not issue an injunction directing the defendant to continue the plaintiff in service during the pendency of the suit. 6. Mr Babulal Gupta appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 has been passed on the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC as the defendant RSRTC had acted contrary to the trial court's ad interim order dated 15.1.2015 on the pending application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed accompanying the suit. It was submitted that the enquiry consequent to which the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 22.1.2015 was contrary to prescribed procedure and therefore null and void. Consequently the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 directing status quo ante as obtaining prior to 22.1.2015, with the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service of defendant RSRTC as a Conductor during the pending suit. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. Consequently the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 directing status quo ante as obtaining prior to 22.1.2015, with the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service of defendant RSRTC as a Conductor during the pending suit. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. In my considered opinion the order dated 16.3.2015 is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that it entails final relief to the plaintiff by way of an interim order. The issue of illegality and validity of the departmental enquiry resulting in the order of dismissal dated 22.1.2015 is an issue of fact which would only be determined by the trial court on the basis of evidence laid by the contesting parties before it. Aside of the aforesaid even on the issue of balance of convenience, the defendant RSRTC has a better case vis-a-vis plaintiff inasmuch in the event of the defendant RSRTC being required to continue with the plaintiff as its employee while under a cloud in terms of the order of dismissal dated 22.1.2015 it would affect the working of the RSRTC and discipline of its employees. Further there is no irreparable loss to the plaintiff in the facts of the case for the reason that in the event, the suit were to succeed before the trial court, the plaintiff would be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages. Consequently, in my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 16.3.2015. is vitiated for being in contravention of the three requisite ingredients for passing an interim order as also for the fact that it entails final relief to the plaintiff even while the suit remains pending. 9. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 is set aside. It is however directed that the trial court shall dispose of the plaintiff's suit within a period of 15 months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.At this stage, Mr Babu Lal Gupta, appearing for plaintiff states that he be allowed to amend the suit in view of the fact that subsequent to the filing of the suit for declaration, the order of the plaintiff's dismissal was passed on 22.1.2015. It goes without saying that where subsequent events occur, relevant to a pending cause of action, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek amendment to his pleadings in accordance with Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. It goes without saying that where subsequent events occur, relevant to a pending cause of action, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek amendment to his pleadings in accordance with Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. No specific directions therefore, in the circumstances, are required in this case on that count.The petition is accordingly allowed.Petition allowed. *******