[2025:RJ-JP:33336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 60/2021 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Managing Director, Having Its Offc At Parivhn Marg Jaipur. 2. General Manager (Operations) And Authorised Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Headquaters) Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. General Manager (Traffic) And Authorised Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Headquaters ) Jaipur (Rajasthan.) ---Defendants-Appellants Versus 1. Subhash Vishnoi (Deceased), Son Of Shri Sitaram Vishnoi, R/o Village Post Satjamna, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar, Former Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Anupgad Depot. 1/1. Shrimati Indira Devi W/o Late Shri Subhash Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Satjamna, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan.) 1/2. Parikshit Kumar Son Of Late Shri Subhash Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Satjamna, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan.) 1/3. Kumari Suman D/o Late Shri Subhash Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Satjamna, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan.) 1/4. Kumari Priyanka D/o Late Shri Subhash Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Satjamna, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan.) ---Plaintiffs-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Harshita Thakjral, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 22/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur, Metropolitan Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.03/2017 (for short ‘the first appellate court), whereby the first appellate court [2025:RJ-JP:33336] (2 of 5) [CSA-60/2021] while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.438/2011 by which the trial court declared the order No.1759 dated 17.10.2006 and order No.57 dated 06.05.2010 as null and void and held the plaintiffs entitled to get all service benefits as were admissible to the deceased employee. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants mentioning therein that the he was appointed as a conductor in the defendants- Corporation on 02.08.1984 and since then, he had been continuously discharging his duties honestly and diligently. A charge-sheet was issued against the original plaintiff alleging that on 01.06.2004 when he was performing his duties as a conductor on Vehicle No.1629 on the Ganganagar-Khajuwal route, an inspection was carried out by the Vigilance team at Sujasar where it was found that out of 28 passengers, 10 passengers were travelling without ticket from whom the plaintiff had already collected fare and did not issue ticket to them. An enquiry was conducted against the original plaintiff, in which, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the original plaintiff and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him and he was terminated from the services vide order dated 17.10.2006 and the plaintiff filed the appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2010. So, the termination order dated 17.10.2006 as well as the order dated 06.05.2010 be declared null and void. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that before passing the [2025:RJ-JP:33336] (3 of 5) [CSA-60/2021] termination order, several opportunities of hearing were granted to the plaintiff but he did not appear and did not corporate with the enquiry proceedings. Consequently, the enquiry report was submitted on 16.11.2005 in the original plaintiff’s absence. He was granted ample opportunities to adduce his evidence. The defendants supported the termination order as well as the appeal dismissal order. 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 fd oknh ds fo:) tkjh lsoki`Fkd vkns’k dzekad 1759 fnukad 17-10-2006 ,oa vihy fujLrhdj.k vkns’k dzekad 57 fnukad 06-05-2010 voS/k o izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds foijhr gS] ftUgsa oknh 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh mDr n.Mkns’k tkjh gksus ls iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa leLr lsok ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k fd oknh }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, the original plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-Subhash Vishnoi and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1 Vijay Gandhi, DW-2 Narendrapal Singh Rana and exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2017 while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff declared the order No.1759 dated 17.10.2006 and appeal dismissal order No.57 dated 06.05.2010 as null and void and held [2025:RJ-JP:33336] (4 of 5) [CSA-60/2021] the legal representatives of the original plaintiff entitled to get all services benefits of the deceased employee. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 21.08.2017 by way of first appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2017 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that trial court as well as appellate court had committed an error in decreeing the suit as well as dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because only Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try it. He also stated that principles of natural justice was also followed during enquiry proceedings. So, judgment and decree dated 21.08.2017 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020 passed by the appellate court deserve to be set aside and appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit in his favour and the appellate court has also not committed any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that in the departmental enquiry, principle of natural justice was not followed and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the [2025:RJ-JP:33336] (5 of 5) [CSA-60/2021] original plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that principles of natural justice was violated and on account of infringement of the civil right, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (I) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. V/s. Ishwari Prasad Bairwa reported in 2025: RJ-JP:27824 (II) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. V/s. Brij Raj Singh reported in 2025:RJ-JP:17181. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that while conducting the enquiry, principle of natural justice was violated. So, trial court had not committed any error in declaring the order No.1759 dated 17.10.2006 and order No.57 dated 06.05.2010 as null and void and held the legal representatives of the deceased employee to get all consequential benefits. 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 Gourav/34