H I G H C O U R T O F J A M M U & K A S H M I R A N D L A D A K H HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No:- WP(C) No. 1144/2020 CM No. 3254/2020 Saleem Khan …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate Vs J&K Road Transport Corporation and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vinayak Phull, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT(ORAL) 13.05.2025 1. In the instant petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Allow the present writ petition; and (b) Quashing the order No. JKRTC/MD/PS/J157 dated 27.06.2020 whereby the penalty of an amount of Rs. 1,61,035 (one lakh sixty- one thousand thirty-five only) is calculated in accordance with Rule 17 Employees (Discipline and Conduct Regulations) 2012 recoverable from the salary of petitioner. (c) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been filed are that the petitioner while working as a Conductor under Registration no. 3106 in the respondent-Corporation came to be imposed impugned penalty in terms of Order No. JKRTC/MD/PS/J/157/27.06.2020 without holding an enquiry thereto and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Objections to the petition have filed by the respondents, wherein it is being, inter-alia, stated that the petitioner during his working as a Conductor Sr. No. 79 2 WP(C) No. 1144/2020 was found to be a habitual offender having indulged in grabbing the Corporation money by allowing ticketless travelling in the Corporation buses as on physical checking by the inspecting squad on 20.06.2020 near Ritz Hotel, Jammu, 45 passengers were found in the bus, of which the petitioner has been the Conductor, travelling without tickets though the said passengers alleged that the Conductor have had taken fare from them, but not issued the tickets and that even on 23.06.2020, the bus wherein the petitioner was working as Conductor, the inspecting squad found that the petitioner had collected fare from 40 passengers, but not issued any tickets to them and, thus, the petitioner was found to have done gross dereliction of duty and committed serious misconduct, as such, was rightly penalized. It is being further stated that the impugned order has been issued in the most dispassionate and objective manner and though the JKSRTC Service Conditions Rules and Regulations, 1979 regulate the service conditions of the Corporation employees, however, the said Rules were not relevant to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was caught red handed and did not offer any defence thereof and that, accordingly, as per the formula prescribed by the Corporation, the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner in order to send good signal and dissuade other erring officials in indulging into such activities. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record available on the file would reveal that the J&KSRTC Employees (Discipline & Conduct) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the, “Regulations”) are admittedly governing and regulating the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation and admittedly, the 3 WP(C) No. 1144/2020 petitioner herein is an employee of the Corporation and subject to the said Regulations. The said Regulations would reveal that a guidance has been provided thereto for holding of a departmental enquiry in respect of the acts of misbehavior, misconduct and indiscipline in the Corporation and besides providing for a holding of a formal enquiry against an erring official of the Corporation, a provision for fact finding enquiry is also contained therein the Regulations, providing that the preliminary/facts finding enquiry shall be conducted before initiating a regular departmental inquiry in order to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations and a formal enquiry is to be conducted in the event, the competent authority becomes satisfied that a prima-facie case exists either on the basis of prevailing enquiry or otherwise requiring the holding of a formal departmental enquiry thereafter. 5. Record would reveal that, admittedly, the respondents have not followed the Regulations of 2012 in the matter before the imposing the penalty against the petitioner contained in the impugned order and have, in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, held that the Regulations of 2012 were not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was imposed the fine as per the formula prescribed by the Corporation without even revealing the said formula and its legal sanctity. The respondents, thus, cannot, but said to have observed the Regulations of 2012 in breach, inasmuch as, in the process grossly infringed the fundamental principles of natural justice while imposing penalty contained in the impugned order against the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof, whereof, the impugned order is quashed, however, with a liberty to the 4 WP(C) No. 1144/2020 respondents to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner in the matter in the event, they choose so and conclude the same within eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents. 7. Disposed of along with connected application(s). (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 13.05.2025 Javid Iqbal Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No