[2025:RJ-JP:31074] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11117/2008 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot, Tonk. (through officer in charge) ----Petitioner Versus 1. S.N. Kedawat Transport Inspector through Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Works Sangathan, Jaipur. 2. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Neeti Mourya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsels for both the parties, the writ petition was heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Rajasthan State State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) has challenged the order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect imposed upon the respondent-workman vide order dated 29.07.1998 has been set-aside and directions for releasing benefits were given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation would submit that after imposition of penalty, Union raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, [2025:RJ-JP:31074] (2 of 3) [CW-11117/2008] Jaipur for adjudication. Terms of reference before the Tribunal are as under: “D;k fu;kstd eq[; izca/kd] jkt0 jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] Vksad vkxkj Vksad }kjk Jfed Jh ,l- ,u- dsnkor] ;krk;kr fujh{kd ¼ftldk izfrfuf/kRo lfpo] jkt0 VªkaliksVZ odZlZ laxBu] t;iqj }kjk fd;k x;k gS½ dks vkns'k la0 5018 fnukad 29-07-98 ds }kjk ,d osru o`f) LFkkbZ :i ls jksdh tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr o vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before making final award, the question of fairness of the enquiry was decided by learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and vide order dated 23.03.2007, the enquiry held against the respondent- workman for the purpose of imposing penalty dated 29.07.1998 was held to be valid and proper. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid order of holding the enquiry to be fair and proper has never been challenged by the respondent-workman. Hence, once the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the only question was left to be decided was with regard to quantum of punishment but while passing final award dated 22.05.2008, learned Tribunal has given findings pointing out defects in enquiry, which is beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Hence, the award dated 22.05.2008 may be quashed and set-aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would submit that although the enquiry against the respondent- workman was held to be fair and proper, yet even while examining the question of quantum of punishment, the Tribunal can look into the nature of charges, burden of proof and effect of not discharging burden by the employer during the course of enquiry. [2025:RJ-JP:31074] (3 of 3) [CW-11117/2008] 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has expressed no objection, in case the question of quantum of punishment is decided by this Court in the instant petition. 8. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 1995 (3) WLC 16, Division Bench of this Court has held that even after holding a workman to be guilty of charges, it is a duty of the respondent-authority to give finding in respect of choice of penalty but in the instant case, even otherwise, the disciplinary authority has failed to exercise its discretion with regard to awarding major penalty and has not explored the possibility of putting quietus to the matter by awarding lesser penalty, more so, under the circumstances, where the respondent- workman was at the verge of retirement on the date of awarding penalty. 9. This Court has examined the facts of the case and while looking to the nature of the allegations and defence put forward by the respondent-workman, it would be in the interest of justice to modify the award dated 22.05.2008 as well as penalty order dated 29.07.1998 and the penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect is modified to the minor penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. 10. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of as per above directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/15