Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31783 (RAJ)

CHANDRAVEER SINGH S/O SHRI RAMGOPAL v. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

CW/16953/2022 · 2025-03-26

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:13668] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16953/2022 Chandraveer Singh S/o Shri Ramgopal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dholpur District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Executive Director (Traffic.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dholpur Depot, District Dholpur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vinita Saini for Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made for issuing directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal submitted against the impugned order dated 18.09.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was punished with various penalties by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.09.2015 against which a statutory appeal has been submitted by the petitioner before the statutory Appellate Authority on 04.02.2021 but inspite of passing considerable time till date the said appeal has not been decided, therefore appropriate directions be issued to the authority concerned to [2025:RJ-JP:13668] (2 of 2) [CW-16953/2022] decide the same expeditiously as early as possible preferably within the time framed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that appeal preferred against the impugned order is stated to be pending before the Appellate Authority. 6. The instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/106