[2025:RJ-JP:12666] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3862/2025 Dharam Chand Raiger S/o Shri Narayan Lal Raiger, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 38 Year House No. 291, Khedapati Balaji Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Pachar, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director (Rajasthan). 2. The Executive Director (Admin), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House Jaipur,(Rajasthan). 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nitin Sinsinwar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/03/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has already been set at rest in catena of judgments passed by this Court wherein the identical controversy has been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner was that he lost a bag of tickets amounting to Rs.2,53,488/-, hence, the Corporation has suffered loss of the aforesaid amount. Counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner that there was any deliberate act on his part or the tickets were misused with an intention to cause financial [2025:RJ-JP:12666] (2 of 2) [CW-3862/2025] loss to the Corporation. Counsel submits that in absence of these facts, no action can be taken against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgment passed by this Court in the cases of SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.], SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.]. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the act and conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief, hence, the instant petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 3. Since, the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the following cases: SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.], SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.], the instant petition also stands allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are free to recover the actual cost of stolen article from the petitioner, after giving him show cause notice. 4. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/19