[2025:RJ-JP:33174] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4808/2003 Munir Ahmed Kureshi S/o Shri Deen Mohammad Kureshi, aged about 51 years, R/o Mukam Post Jobner, Sarai Mohalla, Distt. Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 2. Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur Depot, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Muskan Verma for Mr. S.R. Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025 1. The petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 24.11.2001 whereby the penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect along with fine of Rs.3000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. 2. While assailing the penalty order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the chargesheet (Annex-1) would reveal that the charges leveled against the petitioner were of the period indicating the incidents of the year 1974, whereas chargesheet was issued in the year 2000. Thus, there was apparent delay of 26 years in issuing the chargesheet and on the basis of such stale charges, the petitioner could not have been penalized. Learned counsel for the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:33174] (2 of 3) [CW-4808/2003] further submits that even the complainant was not present before the enquiry officer to prove the charges against the petitioner nor was there any evidence which could have led to an inference enabling the enquiry officer to hold the petitioner guilty. Despite that, on the basis of scratchy enquiry, in which the enquiry officer himself has recorded that the matter relates to very old charges, in quite mechanical manner, the disciplinary authority without properly examining the legality and validity of enquiry proceedings has imposed a major penalty against the petitioner which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents while defending the impugned order has submitted that the basis for passing impugned penalty order is the statement given by the petitioner himself on 10.04.2000 during his personal hearing wherein, he himself has admitted all the charges mentioned against him and also raised no objections with regard to report of enquiry officer. It was also submitted that he did not want to submit any evidence whatsoever nor would like to cross-examine the complainants. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after such confession by the petitioner, no further enquiry was required. The charges leveled against the petitioner were quite serious in nature where allegations of carrying six passengers without ticket as well as 240 KG luggage without freight were leveled against the petitioner. Normally, under such circumstances, serious penalty is imposed, yet looking to the fact that the charges were stale and after considering length of service of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and penalty of withholding one grade [2025:RJ-JP:33174] (3 of 3) [CW-4808/2003] increment with cumulative effect was imposed, in which no infirmity or illegality is there. 5. I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and examined the record. 6. It is settled proposition of law that facts which are admitted need not be proved. In the instant case, in light of above statement of petitioner himself (Annex-R/2), where he has admitted all the charges, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order after such confession by the petitioner. There is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /34