[2025:RJ-JP:31961] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12624/2009 Ram Chander Verma Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahai, aged about 59 years, R/o Village And Post Med, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur Through Its Chairman. 2. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Delhi Depot, I.S.B.T., Room No. 304, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2025 1. The petitioner has assailed penalty order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Chief Manager, Delhi Depot, RSRTC whereby penalty of warning in the service record as well as forfeiture of remaining benefits for suspension period has been imposed. He has also assailed order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2008 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of penalty has also been rejected. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was [2025:RJ-JP:31961] (2 of 4) [CW-12624/2009] totally vague and no specific charges were framed and served upon the petitioner. However, after giving reply to the chargesheet and denying the charges, he participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer enquired into the allegations on the basis of material and evidence on record and after analysing the evidence on record, a categorical finding was given vide Annex-4 in his enquiry report that, no charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. 3. Learned counsel submits that in quite arbitrary manner and without following the due procedure, the disciplinary authority although considered the enquiry report, yet instead of relying upon the same, the disciplinary authority has disowned the findings given by the enquiry officer appointed by RSRTC itself. Learned counsel submits that although, it is well within the rights of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of enquiry officer but under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to frame points of disagreement and while conveying the same to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been granted opportunity to represent against such points of disagreement. However, in this case, no such procedure whatsoever was adopted and the disciplinary authority has passed the penalty order as per his whims and fancies. He filed appeal against the penalty order however, the Appellate Authority has also rejected his appeal in mechanical and cryptic manner. 4. Despite service, even in the second round, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:31961] (3 of 4) [CW-12624/2009] 5. I have perused the reply filed by the respondents, in which no justification whatsoever has been given for not framing any points of disagreement by the disciplinary authority, in case, he was having different opinion with regard to report of the enquiry officer, nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner on such points of disagreement. 6. Needless to mention here that the disciplinary authority, in order to enforce the discipline, can pass penalty orders but before doing so, he is required to follow just and fair procedure contemplated under the relevant rules/standing orders. Fair opportunity of hearing is the essential and necessary element in departmental enquiry and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, delinquent can not be penalised. 7. In the instant case, it is a matter of record that after conducting enquiry and examining the evidence on record, the enquiry officer has given categorical finding holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges leveled against him. Thus, the management during the enquiry has utterly failed to prove the charges against the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, even if the disciplinary authority intended not to agree with the findings of enquiry officer, he was under legal obligation to frame points of disagreement and to grant opportunity of hearing to the delinquent before taking any final action. In the instant case, no such procedure has been followed by the disciplinary authority. Even, the Appellate Authority has passed the appellate order without adverting to the [2025:RJ-JP:31961] (4 of 4) [CW-12624/2009] aforesaid significant points. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Penalty order dated 22.08.2008 (Annex-6) and appellate order dated 17.11.2008 (Annex-9) are hearby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefits, which shall be granted and released within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/21