HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8371/2023 Rajendra Prasad Choudhary Son Of Shri Ramkaran Choudhary, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Rundi Ki Dhani, Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. At Present Posted In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur 302001 2. The Chief Manager, Kota Depot, Rsrtc Office, Bus Stand Nayapura, Kota 324001 (Raj.) 3. The Chief Manager, Jaipur Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur 302001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Gothwal with Ms. Bharti Sharma, Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Ghanshyam Maharda For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Arora JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 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 (2 of 3) [CW-8371/2023] amounting to Rs.68,995/-, 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 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 opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits 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 amount of stolen tickets. (3 of 3) [CW-8371/2023] 4. If during pendency of this petition, any recovery has been effected at the instance of the petitioner, the recovered amount be refunded back to the petitioner after deducting the actual cost of stolen tickets. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/162