[2025:RJ-JP:14804] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11072/2024 Dinesh Kumar Bunkar Son Of Shri Omkar Bunkar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Post Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Presently Working As Conductor, R.s.r.t.c. Jaipur Depot, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Through Its Managing Director-Cum-Chairman, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Chief Manager And Authorized Administrative Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kotputli Depot (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmikant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Meel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/04/2025 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the Respondents may kindly be directed to give 9 years service benefit to Petitioner from date of its entitlement along with 12% interest per annum; (ii) quash and set-aside the office order no. 1224 dated 26.10.2017 and refund amount of Rs.10,902/- along with interest to the Petitioner in the interest of justice; (iii) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice; (iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:14804] (2 of 3) [CW-11072/2024] 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for nine years service benefit qua the petitioner from the date of its entitlement. Thereafter, it is submitted that the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.10.2016 is ought to be quashed and set aside as the same is formulated without jurisdiction and there is no tantamount to misconduct. It is submitted that no charge- sheet can be issued on account of granting low revenue as per the ratio encapsulated in the judgment of Kulvindra Singh vs. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15367/2022 decided vide order dated 12.12.2022. It is further submitted that the alleged act is also not a misconduct as per Section 34 of the Standing Orders of the Respondent Corporation, which is also reflected from letter dated 29.03.2023. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the present petition and has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the counsel representing the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned charge-sheet, the drop of service benefits and office order dated 26.10.2017 issued by respondent No.4 are all factual disputes, and in this regard learned counsel while placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2127/2025 titled as Gopiram Gurjar vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & anr. decided vide order dated 10.02.2025, has submitted that the Court therein held that without availing the alternative statutory remedy if the aggrieved party approaches directly, at the first instance, to the writ Court, the same cannot be entertained, for the reason that an alternative statutory appeal is available to the said person. [2025:RJ-JP:14804] (3 of 3) [CW-11072/2024] 4. Having heard the rival arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present petition as qua the reasoning/representation on different aspects namely nine years service benefit, quashing of the impugned charge-sheet of 14.10.2016 that was issued on account of granting low revenue and office order dated 26.10.2017 issued by respondent No.4, the alternative appropriate statutory authority can pass appropriate order. 5. Therefore, this Court grants a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation citing the relevant judgment of the Court wherein, granting low revenue is not considered to be a misconduct. Secondly, qua the fact that no charge-sheet can be issued to the Conductor in light of directions spelled out in the judgment of Leela Dhar vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2941/2010, and any other relevant cases as deemed appropriate. 6. Withal, it is directed to the respondent no. 2 that if the said representation is filed by the petitioner, the same be adjudicated by way of a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law and taking note of the judicial precedents, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said representation. 7. In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of with aforementioned liberty being granted. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-232