[2025:RJ-JP:33244] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 474/2011 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalana Dungri Depot, Jaipur 3. Executive Director Traffic, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Appellants Versus Laxman Ram S/o Shri Hukma Ram, Village Post Todas, Teh. Nawa, Distt. Nagaur Raj. Presently Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur Depot ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prayag Jain, Adv. for Mr. M. C. Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.06/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has been allowed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.471/2002, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:33244] (2 of 4) [CSA-474/2011] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants. Plaintiff mentioned in the suit that he was appointed as a conductor vide order No.657 dated 17.04.1987 on daily wages basis and subsequently by order dated 16.01.1988 passed by Divisional Manager, Ajmer, he was given regular pay scale and appointed on one year’s probation. After that, vide order No.1113 dated 21.05.1988, he was retrenched from the service against which the plaintiff filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.1989 directed the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff with all the consequential benefits. Thereafter, vide order No.991 dated 12.04.1989 the plaintiff was again retrenched from service w.e.f. 22.04.1989 and vide order No.2182 dated 15.06.1993 the plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on daily wages basis afresh. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendant filed written statement and stated that the plaintiff while serving as Conductor, his service record was not satisfactory. The plaintiff was penalized in relation to 7 charge- sheets. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff filed this suit after about 10 years without any justifiable reason. During enquiry, principles of natural justice was followed. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k NVuh vkns’k fnukad 12-4-89 dks ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk voS/k ?kksf"kr djus ls oknh NVuh vkns’k ls iqu% fu;qfDr vkns’k rd dh lsok vof/k dk [2025:RJ-JP:33244] (3 of 4) [CSA-474/2011] ykHk ysus rFkk fu;fer osru J`a[kyk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh dh lsok czsd dks oknh voS/k ?kksf"kr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k oknh NVuh vof/k dk uks’kuy fQDls’ku djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k okn oknh fe;kn ckgj gS\ 5- vk;k oknh LVksiy ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ To prove its case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Laxman Ram. Defendants had not adduced any evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the appellate Court committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that principles of natural justice was also followed during enquiry proceeding. So, judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011 passed by the appellate court be set aside and the present appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:33244] (4 of 4) [CSA-474/2011] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the appellate court had not committed any error in allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that while conducting enquiry, principles of natural justice was violated. So, in my considered opinion, appellate court had not committed any error in allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /28