[2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 123/2021 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot. ----Appellant Versus Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Gokul Singh, Driver, Resident Of Village And Post Kuchawati, Tehsil - Deeg, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Dubey on behalf of Mr. Prateek Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 15/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, before the learned Single Judge, the appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected on the ground that the departmental inquiry was wholly perverse and the findings recorded therein were also perverse. 3. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition held as under:- “I have considered the submissions as above. It is a case where an approval was sought for the order of dismissal from service passed in the enquiry conducted against a Conductor, who was found to be absent from duty on a particular date i.e. 17th November, 2001. The witness of the [2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-123/2021] RSRTC himself admitted that the workman was on leave from 16th November, 2000 to 15th December, 2000 on account of death of his grandfather and thus the duty assigned to him on 17th November, 2001 was wrongful and erroneous. The finding given by the Inquiry Officer that the workman was absent from duty on 17th November 2001 is ipso facto perverse and the finding accordingly of the Industrial Tribunal does not warrant interference. Similarly for the next charge levelled against the workman of not attending the duties on 26th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001 was also found to be perverse. The witness of the RSRTC admits that the workman was granted leave from 25th April, 2001 to 27th April, 2001 thus he could not have been absent from duty on 26th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001 as he was already on leave from 25th April, 2001. Such a charge levelled has been found to be perverse. The enquiry has been accordingly held to be perverse by the Tribunal. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal had treated enquiry to be fair earlier, the approval should have been given is wholly misconceived. It is one aspect that enquiry is fair i.e. principles of natural justice have been followed and opportunity of hearing and cross- examination have been given to the delinquent. However, the other aspect is whether enquiry itself and the charge levelled itself is perverse or not. If facts show that the charge itself is wholly perverse, there can be no approval to such an enquiry proceedings and the punishment awarded in such enquiry proceedings. The learned Industrial Tribunal has thus rightly examined the case and reached to correct conclusion while passing order dated 03.01.2020 rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b). The consequence thereto shall accordingly followed. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the proper procedure was followed by the Department while conducting the inquiry. He [2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-123/2021] further submits that the workman had remained absent from duty without prior sanction of leave. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On examination of the record placed before the learned Labour Court, it is evident that with regard to the first charge- sheet, the Department’s own witness admitted that on the relevant date the workman was on sanctioned leave due to the death of his grandfather. Similarly, with regard to the second charge-sheet, the Department’s witness admitted that the workman was on sanctioned leave for the dates on which he was shown to be absent. 8. Considering the statement of witness of the Department, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department. 9. In our considered view, there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Labour Court and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. In that view of the matter, we are in a complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /12