[2025:RJ-JP:33757] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 239/2020 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office - Jaipur Through Managing Director, Head Office - Chomu House, Under Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur 2. Executive Director, Sanchalan, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Chomu House, Under Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun Depot, Hindaun ----Appellants Versus Chand Khan S/o Sh. Damodar Khan, R/o Near Jhopdi Ka Mandir, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Presently Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun Depot, Hindaun ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Adv. for Mr. Prateek Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Adv. for Mr. Usman Khan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 26/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Regular Appeal No.10/2018 (CIS No.270/18), whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit [2025:RJ-JP:33757] (2 of 5) [CSA-239/2020] No.418/2012, by which the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has been decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants. Plaintiff mentioned in the suit that he was appointed as a Driver by the defendants in the year 1986. It was also mentioned that in the appointment letter, the plaintiff was stated to be a daily wager against which the plaintiff raised objection. After that, the defendants issued order No.2062 dated 11.08.1988 and appointed the plaintiff on one year probation period. After completing probation period, the plaintiff was regularized. It was also mentioned that after getting sanctioned the leave from 28.08.2011, the plaintiff proceeded to his residence but there, he fell ill. On recovery, when plaintiff joined his service on 13.09.2011 and submitted the medical prescriptions, the defendants issued charge-sheet No.3155 dated 12.09.2011 to the plaintiff levelling the allegation that he remained absent from duty without any information. As a result of which, financial loss was caused to the corporation and the passengers suffered difficulty at the route. The plaintiff submitted that the said charge levelled upon him was false. The Enquiry Officer did not find the plaintiff guilty for the alleged charge but the disciplinary authority violating the principle of natural justice dissented with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer and while holding the plaintiff guilty, punished him with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 205 dated 13.04.2012. It was prayed that the punishment order be declared illegal and void ab initio. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. [2025:RJ-JP:33757] (3 of 5) [CSA-239/2020] The defendant filed written statement and stated that the plaintiff remained absent without any information. During enquiry, principles of natural justice was followed. Civil court had no jurisdiction to try it only and Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ¼1½ vk;k fd oknh izfroknhx.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k Øekad 205 fnukad 13-04-2012 dks voS/k o izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds foijhr gksus ds vk/kkj ij fujLr ?kksf"kr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ¼2½ vk;k fd oknh mDr n.Mkns'k ikfjr gksus ls iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa leLr vkfFkZd o lsokykHk Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ¼3½ vk;k fd oknh mDr n.Mkns'k ds izHkko esa izfroknhx.k }kj oknh ds osru ls olwy dh x;h vFkZn.M dh jkf'k dks e; C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ¼4½ vk;k fd oknh }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj bl dkj.k U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS \ ¼5½ vuqrks"k\ To prove its case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Chand Khan. Defendants had not adduced any evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 and the appellate court vide [2025:RJ-JP:33757] (4 of 5) [CSA-239/2020] judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit as well as dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because only Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the suit. He also stated that principles of natural justice was also followed during enquiry proceeding. So, judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020 passed by the appellate court be set aside and the present appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit as well as dismissed the appeal. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the grounds taken by the disciplinary authority while expressing his dissenting view, neither any notice was given to the plaintiff to the effect that he was disagreeing with the enquiry report nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him in this regard. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court have not committed any error in [2025:RJ-JP:33757] (5 of 5) [CSA-239/2020] decreeing the suit as well as dismissed the appeal. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J TAHIR/42