HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2060/2025 Sanjay Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Goverdhand Lal Sharma, aged about 48 Years, Resident of 4505, Jopat Bhawan, K.G.B Ka Rasta, Jhori Bajar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Gothwal Mr. Ghanshaym Maharda Mr. Pawn Kumar Sharma Ms. Bharti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P.Sheoran JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/02/2025 1. Mr. O.P. Sheoran, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has already been set at rest in catena of judgments passed by this Court wherein the identical controversy has been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner was that he lost a bag of tickets amounting to Rs.1,20,426/-, hence, the Corporation has suffered loss of the aforesaid amount. Counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner that there was any deliberate act on his part (2 of 2) [CW-2060/2025] or the tickets were misused with an intention to cause financial loss to the Corporation. Counsel submits that in absence of these facts, no action can be taken against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgment passed by this Court in the cases of SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.],SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.]. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the act and conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief, hence, the instant petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 4. Since, the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the following cases: SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.], SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.], the instant petition also stands allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are free to recover the actual cost of stolen article from the petitioner after giving him show cause notice. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/14