[2026:RJ-JP:1653] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1037/2004 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Manager, Ajmer Tonk Depot, Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Union, 881, Teesara Chauraha, Baba Harishchander Marg, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (on behalf of Shri Badri Narain Meena, Conductor working in the Corporation). 2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Sahdeo Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur. ----Non-petitioners Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1029/2004 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Manager, Kota through Chief Manager, Tonk Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot, Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Union, 881, Teesara Chauraha, Baba Harishchander Marg, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (on behalf of Shri Rajesh Kumar Chauhan son of Shri Chothmal, Conductor working in the Corporation). 2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Sahdeo Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur. ----Non-petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Yash Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddarth Sogani for Mr. Rajeev Surana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 15/01/2026 1. As facts stated in the above writ petitions, cause of action as well as point of consideration involved in the above two writ petitions are almost similar, therefore, the writ petitions were [2026:RJ-JP:1653] (2 of 6) [CW-1037/2004] heard together and are being decided by this common order. However, for the purpose of convenience, the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1037/2004 are being taken into consideration. 2. By way of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed award dated 06.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby penalty order dated 29.02.1988 and 19.12.1983 imposed by the petitioners- Corporation against the respondents-workman was quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of committing serious misconduct, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners and pursuant to such charge-sheet, inquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners- Corporation/respondents-workman was conducted and as there were findings of the Inquiry Officer that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him, after following the process, penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect along with forfeiture of benefits of suspension period was imposed upon the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry conducted by the petitioners-Corporation has not been found to be unfair by learned Tribunal, however, only on the ground that the penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the workman was beyond the powers of the authority under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 and thereby the penalty order has been quashed. Learned counsel also submits that at no point of time, it was pleaded by the workman [2026:RJ-JP:1653] (3 of 6) [CW-1037/2004] that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners was beyond the powers under Standing Orders, 1965 yet, at its own without there being any such point raised by the workman, penalty has been quashed by the Tribunal holding it to be beyond the provisions of Standing Orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that penalty order was passed in the year 1988, yet it was challenged by the workman in the year 1997, even then, question of delay was not decided and the penalty order was quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-workman submits that learned Tribunal has passed award dated 06.11.2003 after appreciating the statement of claim and reply thereof as well as the other material on record and after meticulously examining the powers of Officer of petitioners-Corporation to impose the penalty of withholding grade increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel submits that the very question was raised earlier before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2027/2004 in Chief Manager Vs. Rajasthan Transport Works Sangathan & Anr., wherein after dealing with the earlier judgments, penalty imposed upon the workman has been held to be ultra vires the Standing Orders of 1965. 6. Learned counsel submits that even the question of delay has also been considered in judgment dated 18.08.2025, where after appreciating that on account of delay the relief has been moulded and the benefits have been granted only from the date of raising the industrial dispute, the objection raised by the Corporation was rejected by this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:1653] (4 of 6) [CW-1037/2004] 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The questions raised in these writ petitions have already been dealt with by this Court in the case of Chief Manager (supra), where in Para-8 the similar question, as raised in the instant writ petitions, was framed by this Court and it was answered in Para-10 on the basis of earlier judgment delivered by this Court. 9. Para-6, 7, 8 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and are being reproduced hereunder:- "6. Bare perusal of award dated 29.09.2003 would reveal that the only reason for interference highlighted by the Tribunal in the award is that penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of remaining benefits of suspension period are beyond the prescribed penalties under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’). 7. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision delivered by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Vs. Inder Singh & Another, 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 207, wherein the identical question with regard to tenability of the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect was decided at the touch stone of the Standing Orders of 1965. This Court held in the following manner: “6. I am of the view that as a matter of fact, the expressions used under Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 are pari materia to sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 read with Rule 17(aa) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’), wherein, under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, the expression “withholding of increments or promotion” is used which is treated to be a minor punishment whereas under Rule 17(aa) of the said Rules, punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect for any period is declared to be major punishment. 7. In the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the provisions postulated under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 read with Rule 17(aa) of the Rules of 1958 making distinction between withholding of increments with cumulative effect [2026:RJ-JP:1653] (5 of 6) [CW-1037/2004] and withholding of increments without cumulative effect can be safely used as key to open the lock of ambiguity of Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965. Accordingly, it is held that withholding of increments with cumulative effect and withholding of increments without cumulative effect is not the same thing. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 holding that it does not include within its fold withholding of increments with cumulative effect is correct and it is hereby affirmed. 8. Now law must be taken to be well settled that if there is ambiguity relating to a statutory provision having two conflicting interpretations and also leading to punitive consequences to the citizens then the interpretation in favour of citizens to be preferred. On this count also, the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 in favour of respondent No. 1. 9. Alternatively, it is taken as a ground in the writ petition that even if punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is not contemplated under Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 the respondent can be punished with two annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Clause (vi) of Order 36 of the said Standing Orders. Suffice it to say in this regard that although this point was taken before the Industrial Tribunal but was not rightly pressed, hence, there is no discussion on this point in the impugned Award. In abundant caution, it is held that field occupied by clause (ii) and clause (vi) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 is not same. Both the clauses occupied different fields, therefore this point was not rightly pressed before the Industrial Tribunal. There can be no presumption that clause (vi) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 are superfluous and occupy the same field which is occupied by clause (ii) of Order 36 of the said Standing Orders.” 8. Thus, when the issue as to whether the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect can be imposed under the Standing Orders of 1965 has already been put to rest in the aforesaid decision, I do not find any justification behind imposing such penalty by the petitioner-Corporation. 10. However, in the instant case, where the penalty imposed upon the workman is ultra vires the Standing Orders of 1965 and such question goes to the root of the matter, competence of the disciplinary authority to impose a particular penalty, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake in quashing such illegal order vide impugned award dated 29.09.2003. The Tribunal is also justified in moulding the relief on account of alleged delay and it reflects from award dated 29.09.2003 that monetary benefits have been allowed to workman from the date of raising industrial dispute and not prior to that." [2026:RJ-JP:1653] (6 of 6) [CW-1037/2004] 10. Since, the dispute has already been set at rest in the aforesaid judgment dated 18.08.2025. There is no reason to take any different view, therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /15-16