[2025:RJ-JP:3746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11915/2015 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vaishali Nagar Depot, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sarvajanik Kshetra Karamchari Sangh, 80, Bajrang Vihar, Near Gopalpura Railway Phatak, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Workman Ramanand). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S. L. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Dharmendra Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, "the Tribunal") by which the order imposing penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the respondent has been quashed and set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental charge-sheet was issued to the respondent with the charge that seven passengers were found without ticket at the time of inspection of the vehicle and it was found that those seven passengers were carrying ticket of private vehicle. Counsel submits that an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and these facts were found to be proved, but even then the Enquiry Officer while going beyond his jurisdiction recorded a finding that [2025:RJ-JP:3746] (2 of 4) [CW-11915/2015] the respondents has deposited the amount of tickets collected before the time of inspection of the vehicle, hence, he cannot be punished with dual penalty, i.e., financial as well as disciplinary action. Counsel submits that when the matter went to the Disciplinary Authority, the view taken by the Enquiry Officer was not found proved and an order was passed for withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the respondent which was assailed by the respondent before the Tribunal. 3. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has gone a step ahead by holding that since the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner and without issuing any notice of disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned award. Counsel submits that the instant case is not a case where an Enquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent rather the charges against the respondent were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, hence under these circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after thorough enquiry, charges were not found to be proved against the respondent, that is why, he has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. Counsel submits that it is the settled proposition of law that whenever the charges are not found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer against the delinquent employee, it is expected from the Disciplinary Authority to issue disagreement notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the said Officer, but [2025:RJ-JP:3746] (3 of 4) [CW-11915/2015] herein the instant case, no such exercise was done and straightaway, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment which has rightly quashed by the Tribunal, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Dy General Manager (Statistic), RSRTC Vs. Chandgiram Giri & Anr. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9816/2005. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a departmental charge- sheet was served upon the respondent with the charge that at the time of inspection of the vehicle, seven passengers were found without ticket of the Corporation-petitioner and they were holding the tickets of private vehicle. 8. The record indicates that when enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the delinquent respondent has admitted the charge and submitted before the Enquiry Officer that he has deposited the amount collected by him before the inspection. It appears that deposition of the aforesaid amount by the respondent was treated as a financial liability upon the respondent and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot be punished with dual penalty. This fact was interpreted by the Disciplinary Authority, when the final order was passed and the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, that is why, an order was passed withholding [2025:RJ-JP:3746] (4 of 4) [CW-11915/2015] the two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the respondent. The Tribunal appears to made a mistake while passing the award and holding the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent and that the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any disagreement notice to the respondent before passing the impugned punishment and no opportunity was afforded to him to put his defence. The Enquiry Officer has not exonerated the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority has not committed an error in passing the impugned award. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Chandgiram Giri (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is upheld. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /25