[2025:RJ-JP:38625] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17479/2011 Abdul Hameed Khan S/o Abdul Hafeez Khan, R/o Chaman Qadri Baag, Dablana Road, Bada Talab, Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through The Managing Director, Parivhan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalawar Depot, Jhalawar. 3. The Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota Zone, Kota. 4. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bundi Depot, Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed with Mr. Mohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/09/2025 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation(for short 'RSRTC'), Jhalawar Depot, Jhalawar, whereby penalty of removal from services along with forfeiture of remaining salary of suspension period was imposed upon the petitioner. He has also questioned the validity of order dated 06.08.2010 by the [2025:RJ-JP:38625] (2 of 6) [CW-17479/2011] Zonal Manager, RSRTC, Kota Zone, Kota, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was holding a substantive post of Driver in RSRTC. While, he was posted at Bundi (Rajasthan), on 03.01.2005, one duty chart was given to him for driving a bus for the route from Bundi to Khandwa having a distance of around 495 KMs. Looking to the long distance of the route, another Driver namely Sh. Niyamatullah Khan was also deputed with him, who was required to drive the bus in the second shift. In the same bus Sh. Permanand Chauhan was also assigned duty as a Conductor. It was submitted that the petitioner carried out his duties of driving the bus and he drove the same from Bundi to Ujjain and thereafter, the other crew Driver namely Sh. Niyamatullah Khan took the charge and was driving the bus. During that period, he was taking rest and was sleeping in the driver's cabin. However, unfortunately one accident took place and immediately after causing the accident, the driver-in-charge of the bus Sh. Niyamatullah Khan ran away and under such circumstances, where the petitioner was found at the spot, he was charged with the allegation of causing accident and, only on that basis, a criminal case was lodged against him and charge-sheet was given to him. 3. Petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet in which he denied all the allegations. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 15.10.2008, whereby penalty of removal from [2025:RJ-JP:38625] (3 of 6) [CW-17479/2011] services along with forfeiture of benefits of suspension period was imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Against the penalty order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority raising grounds in order to show the apparent defects in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer which was also ignored by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority without considering the relevant facts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two material witnesses i.e., the Conductor of the bus Sh. Permanand Chauhan and the other crew Driver Sh. Niyamatullah Khan were crucial witnesses, yet they were not produced during the inquiry, despite the request made by the petitioner and without there being any evidence of such witnesses, who were also employees of respondent-Corporation only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, it was presumed that the accident was caused by the petitioner and only on such erroneous assumption, the order of penalty was passed. 6. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29758/2018 decided on 18.11.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all these grounds with regard to not recording of evidence of Conductor Sh. Permanand Chauhan and other crew Driver Sh. Niyamatullah Khan were also raised in order to question the propriety of the penalty order, yet despite recording the specific [2025:RJ-JP:38625] (4 of 6) [CW-17479/2011] grounds in the penalty order, no finding whatsoever were given by the Appellate Authority in respect of such specific grounds which has caused serious prejudice and a miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the penalty order as well as appellate order, it was submitted that the charge-sheet framed against the petitioner contained specific and definite charges. Opportunity to file a reply to the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner which was already availed by him and thereafter, as reply to the charge- sheet was not satisfactory, Inquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the inquiry strictly as per the procedure and by following the principles of natural justice granted complete opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner could have produced the Conductor as well as other two Drivers in his defence but, he failed to produce those witnesses in his support. 9. It has also been submitted that no application whatsoever was produced by the petitioner, for calling the Conductor in evidence before the Inquiry Officer. It has further been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, after appreciating the charge-sheet, record of inquiry as well as the inquiry report and defence put forward by the petitioner has given meticulous findings and after looking at the past record of the petitioner, wherein as many as reference of 43 charge-sheets/penalties has been mentioned, penalty of removal from service was imposed, which cannot be said to be disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:38625] (5 of 6) [CW-17479/2011] 10. Having considered the record of the writ petition as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is mindful of the fundamental principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the evidence laid before the Inquiry Officer cannot be re- appreciated by this Court as an Appellate Authority. However, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner can also not ignored that the other two employees of respondent- Corporation i.e. Conductor Sh. Permanand Chauhan and co-crew Driver Sh. Niyamatullah Khan were the material witnesses to narrate the correct facts regarding accident and while preferring an appeal against the penalty order, the petitioner has raised a specific ground that the Conductor of the bus who was also an eye witnesses was not produced in evidence, who could have disclosed the truth as to whether at the time of accident the bus was being driven by the petitioner or by the other Driver Sh. Niyamatullah Khan. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that the Appellate Authority while hearing appeal against the penalty order is under legal obligation to consider and adjudicate all the relevant grounds raised by the delinquent. In the instant case, although the grounds raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal have been noted by the Appellate Authority, yet no finding whatsoever has been given on such grounds. Thus, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is cryptic, vague and mechanical. 12. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to partly allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:38625] (6 of 6) [CW-17479/2011] Appellate Authority in appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order is held to be arbitrary and illegal and the same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned speaking order. Needful be done by the Appellate Authority within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/16