Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 477 (RAJ)

Gopa Ram v. Chairman And Md. , Rsrtc Ltd. ,

2023-02-10

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 (Ann.7) passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 29.02.2012 (Ann.8) passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was posted as Driver under the respondent-Corporation at Barmer. However, on 03.10.2007, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the concerned authority of the respondent-Corporation, indicating therein two charges against the petitioner, regarding the act of negligence on his part, while driving, in discharge of his duties, a Bus, of the respondent-Corporation, bearing registration No.RJ-04-PA-0140 on Barmer-Jhunjhunu route. 2.1 The first charge against the petitioner, as per the charge-sheet, was that on 05.09.2007, while, in discharge of his duties, the petitioner was driving Bus No. RJ 04 PA-140, at 02:15 a.m., when the said bus reached near Raghunathpura, at that time, it was clear, upon seeing the position of the vehicle, that the driver (petitioner) was in a sleeping condition, or on count of puncture in the tyre of the driver side, the bus dragged and broke the wall near the road due to collision, and thereafter, the bus got into a pond (Talaab); thereby causing a financial loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-to the respondent-Corporation due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. 2.1.1 The second charge, as per the charge-sheet, was that on 04.09.2007, while the petitioner was driving the same bus on the same route, prior to reaching Deedwana, the bus, due to negligence of the petitioner, collided with a wall near the road; due to which, a new tyre of the bus got burst, thereby causing a financial loss to the tune of Rs.7530/-to the respondent-Corporation. 2.1.2 The petitioner filed a reply on 03.11.2007 to the aforementioned charge-sheet, while denying the charges therein. 2.1.2 The petitioner filed a reply on 03.11.2007 to the aforementioned charge-sheet, while denying the charges therein. 2.1.3 Prior thereto, the respondents, vide order dated 02.11.2007 appointed the Enquiry Officer i.e. Shri J.P. Sharma; however, upon the petitioner being transferred to Phalodi Depot to Barmer Depot, the enquiry officer was changed vide order dated 26.04.2010. The said enquiry officer thereafter, submitted his report on 21.12.2010, wherein the enquiry officer, after recording the statements and looking into the evidence and other material placed before him, did not find the charges to be proved against the petitioner. 2.2. Thereafter, the respondents, being dissatisfied with the aforementioned report of the enquiry officer, and issued a notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2011 for personal hearing. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 23.11.2011 and denied the charges against him. 2.3 The respondents however, vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 imposed upon the petitioner a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and a recovery of an amount of Rs.27,260/-(in ten equal installments) from the salary of the petitioner. 2.3.1 The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.2, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, while upholding the impugned punishment order dated 30.11.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer did not find any charge to be proved against the petitioner; the respondents however, being dissatisfied with the said enquiry report, issued the aforementioned notice to the petitioner, whereafter, the impugned punishment order was passed against him, which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the two charges, as levelled against the petitioner in charge-sheet dated 03.10.2007 were not proved against him, because there was not a single substantial evidence found against the petitioner, in relation to the charges against him. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned punishment order deserves to be quashed and set aside, and also, the appellate order, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, requires interference by this Court. 5. On other hand, learned for respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned orders were passed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences and material placed on record. 6. 5. On other hand, learned for respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned orders were passed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences and material placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the respondents have rightly issued the charge-sheet against the petitioner, because on count of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner, in discharge of his duties, the respondent-Corporation was put to an unwarranted and substantial financial loss. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court finds that as indicated in the aforementioned charge-sheet dated 03.10.2007, the aforesaid two charges were levelled against the petitioner, pertaining to his alleged negligence while driving the bus of the respondent-Corporation, on the relevant dates, on count of which, as per the respondents, a financial loss of a total sum of Rs.57,530/-was caused to the respondent-Corporation. 9. This Court however, finds that the report of enquiry officer dated 21.12.2010 clearly reveals that the enquiry officer after considering the evidence and material placed on record before him, found that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. 9. This Court however, finds that the report of enquiry officer dated 21.12.2010 clearly reveals that the enquiry officer after considering the evidence and material placed on record before him, found that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. Relevant portion of Enquiry Report dated 21.12.2010 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^esjs }kjk leLr fjdkMZ i=koyh esa miyC/k c;ku tokc dk voyksdu fd;k x;k gS ftlesa okgu esdsfud Jh lqjsUnzflag ls-fu- ckM+esj vkxkj us vius c;kuksa esa Li"V fy[kk gS fd okgu dk FkMZ vkj ,e dk cksYV VwVus ls LVs;fjax Qzh gks x;k rFkk Qzh gksus ds dkj.k okgu [khapdj rkykc dh nhokj rksM+dj nq?kZVukxzLr gks xbZA blls tkfgj gksrk gS fd vkjksih Jh xksikjke pkyd ij yxk;s x;s nq?kZVuk ds vkjksi ykijokgh ls u gksdj okgu ds FkMZ vkj ,e cksYV VwVus ls LVs;fjax Qzh gks x;k rFkk okgu nhokj rksM+dj nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;k rFkk Vk;j QV x;k rFkk pSfll esa cS.M ugha vk;k blls vkjksih ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi fl) ugha gksrs gSA ,l- Mh- 21-12-2010 vr% deZpkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi la[;k 1 ¼,d½ iw.kZ:i ls fl) ugha gksrk gS rnuqlkj fjiksVZ vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq izLrqr gSA ,l- Mh- 21-12-2010 tkap vf/kdkjh** Relevant portion of Impugned order dated 30.11.2011 are reproduced hereunder: ^^esjs }kjk i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkostksa izk:i vkjksi i= vkjksih }kjk izLrqr vkjksi i= dk fyf[kr tokc O;fDrxr lquokbZ esa fn;s x;s c;ku tkap i=koyh o tkap izfrosnu vkfn dk HkyhHkafr o /;ku iwoZd voyksdu o v/;;u fd;k x;kA ftlesa ik;k fd %& 1- ,DlhMsUV fjiksVZ esa ,DlhMsUV vVsUM djus okys vf/kdkjh us vkjksih dks uhan vkuk vFkok vxyk Vk;j iaDpj gksus ls okgu lkbZM esa f[kap dj tkuk n'kZrs gq, vkjksih dh xyrh crkbZ gSA 2- ,DlhMsUV fjiksVZ rS;kj djrs oDr vkjksih }kjk o dk;Zjr ifjpkyd }kjk fn;s x;s vius c;kuksa esa Vk;j QwVus dh vkokt vkuk crk;k x;k gSA 3- Jh lqjsUnzflag xgyksr esdsfud us vius c;ku o ftjg esa ;g crk;k fd okgu dks muds }kjk j?kqukFkiqjk esa gh tkap dj fjis;j fd;k x;k rFkk okgu dk FkMZ vkj ,e dk cksYV VwVus ls okgu f[kap dj rkykc esa pyh xbZ ijUrq Jh flag o vkjksih }kjk ;g dgha ugha crk;k x;k gS fd mDr FkMZ cksYV dgka ls [kjhnk x;k ;k fdl dk;Z'kkyk ls b';w djok;k x;k tc fd Jh flag us vius c;kuksa esa vkjksih }kjk okgu pyk dj ckM+esj ykuk crk;k gSA -------------------** 10. This Court further finds that the aforequoted relevant portion of the enquiry report dated 21.12.2010 clearly reveals that one Shri Surendra Singh, the then Vehicle Mechanic, Barmer Depot, in his statement before the enquiry officer, categorically deposed that on the date of incident in question, the third RM Bolt of the Bus got damaged, due to which the steering became free, resulting into dragging of the bus, while breaking the wall of the pond (talaab); in course of which, the tyre of the bus got burst, while the chasis did not bend. Thus, as per the enquiry report, owing to the statement rendered by the concerned Vehicle Mechanic, the main cause of the said incident was the damage being caused to the third RM Bolt, which, in the circumstances, cannot be attributed to the present petitioner. Thus, the enquiry officer did not find the charge to be proved against the petitioner. 11. This Court thus finds that in light of the aforementioned enquiry report, it is clear that the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 itself has not been passed, in the right perspective, more particularly, in view of the fact that the charges, as levelled against the petitioner, did not project the correct factual position of the matter, rather the said impugned order clearly discerns a much contradictory factual matrix. 12. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure-7) and 29.02.2012 (Annexure-8), are hereby quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of.