[2025:RJ-JP:20506] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19361/2015 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through General Manager Cum Managing Director, Jaipur 2. Executive Director Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Transport, Jaipur 3. Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Lohagarh Depot, Bharatpur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus Secretary, Rajasthan State Roadways Labour Union, 11/231, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. (Workmen Bhupendra Singh, Conductor) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Punia with Mr. Inder Jeet Tak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 15/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 31.08.2015 whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the respondent- workman, the order of punishment dated 12.07.2002 was quashed and set aside as also against the order dated 19.03.2014 whereby, the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner- corporation was found to be unfair and invalid; both passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in ITR No.02/2004. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-workman, a Conductor with the petitioner-corporation, was issued a charge- sheet dated 02.05.1998, wherein, the enquiry officer did not find [2025:RJ-JP:20506] (2 of 2) [CW-19361/2015] the allegation found to be established. However, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 12.07.2002, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer; but, without intimating the workman with his note of dissent, inflicted the penalty of fine of Rs.1000/-, stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and forfeiture of the salary for the suspension period which has been set aside by the learned Tribunal as stated hereinabove. In view of the trite law that it is obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to remit a note of dissent to the delinquent employee while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer recorded in favour of the delinquent employee and in view of admitted position that such exercise was not undertaken in the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to question the validity of either the order dated 19.03.2014 or the award dated 31.08.2015. He also did not dispute that in the light of a judgment of three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra: (1998) 7 SCC 84; MANU/SC/0531/1998, since, the workman already stands retired on attaining the age of superannuation, it is not a fit case wherein, the matter should be remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass an order afresh. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/34