[2026:RJ-JP:2231] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4530/2008 Dhanesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Puranmal Sharma, aged about 54 years, R/o House No.2 Te 3, Housing Board, Krishna Colony, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Chairman Cum Managing Director Rjasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Bus Stand Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bharatpur Depot Bharatpur, whereby penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect has been inflicted along with warning to remain cautious in future. Petitioner has also assailed order dated 22.01.2008, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed by the General Manager (Operation) Jaipur Zone, on account of being time barred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with one charge-sheet dated 12.12.2006 containing two charges relating to misbehaviour with the higher [2026:RJ-JP:2231] (2 of 5) [CW-4530/2008] officer and wilful absence. Such charge-sheet was defended by him by way of filing reply and, thereafter, inquiry was conducted. After conducting inquiry from both the sides, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner were made out. Copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner and since it was in favour of the petitioner, therefore, he was not required to make any representation against such inquiry report. Thereafter, one notice for personal hearing was received by him and despite the fact that the Inquiry Officer has given findings in favour of the petitioner and has held that the charges are not proved against him, without showing any cogent reasons or without framing any points of disagreement as well as, by not giving any opportunity to the petitioner over any points of disagreement, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner, undermining the procedure contemplated under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, penalty order dated 23.11.2007 has been passed inflicting penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. Against the order dated 23.11.2007, although the appeal was filed by the petitioner on 15.12.2007, yet same was not entertained and was dismissed being time barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Standing Orders of 1965, the procedure for imposing minor as well as major penalty is same and the Standing Orders do not confer any right upon the disciplinary authority to ignore the findings of the Inquiry Officer and to take a different view from that taken by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel further submits [2026:RJ-JP:2231] (3 of 5) [CW-4530/2008] that even bare perusal of impugned penalty order dated 23.11.2007 would reveal that in the entire order, otherwise also, no justified reason has been given by the disciplinary authority to take a different view than the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the order has been passed in utter violation of provisions of Standing Orders of 1965 as well as principles of natural justice and same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- Corporation submits that the Inquiry Officer could not properly appreciate the evidence led before him, therefore, the disciplinary authority has got right to re-examine the inquiry report and where it is found that the Inquiry Officer has not given its report on the basis of record, the disciplinary authority has got right to take a different view. The disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings given by the Inquiry Officer; therefore, after application of independent mind, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation further submits that before passing order dated 23.11.2007, one notice dated 13.03.2007 for personal hearing was given to the petitioner, however, during personal hearing the petitioner failed to convince the disciplinary authority that the findings of Inquiry Officer were correct and rightly arrived at. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that disciplinary authority has apparently got a right to conduct inquiry either himself or to get it conducted through any other officer. Therefore, the disciplinary authority plays a dual role and in the obtaining facts and circumstances, where the disciplinary authority has found that the Inquiry Officer was not correct in his approach [2026:RJ-JP:2231] (4 of 5) [CW-4530/2008] to hold the petitioner not guilty, after examining the record and appreciation of evidence, penalty order has rightly been passed by the Inquiry Officer. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has utterly failed to point out as to whether there are two different procedures under the Standing Orders of 1965 for conducting inquiry in relation to imposing major penalty and minor penalty. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also could not indicate any provision conferring any power whatsoever upon the disciplinary authority to take a different view, which has been taken by the Inquiry Officer. 9. Although, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is not disputed that the disciplinary authority could have also conducted inquiry himself, yet under the circumstances, where it entrusted the work of conducting departmental inquiry with some other officer, then under such circumstances, the inquiry report submitted by such Inquiry Officer should be given due credence and value. 10. Even otherwise, fairness and transparency demands that where the disciplinary authority was not convinced with the inquiry report and wanted to hear the petitioner on the point of disagreement then under such circumstances, it would have been just and proper for the disciplinary authority to frame distinct and separate points of disagreement and to communicate the same to the petitioner by way of sending notice calling upon a representation of the petitioner regarding such points of [2026:RJ-JP:2231] (5 of 5) [CW-4530/2008] disagreement. However, admittedly in the instant case, no such procedure has been adopted by the disciplinary authority before passing impugned order of penalty. 11. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority is not only in violation of the provisions of Standings Orders of 1965, but is also against the principles of natural justice, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority along with all consequential orders, is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits, which shall be sanctioned and released to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /48