[2026:RJ-JP:315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2025 Pawan Kumar Chahar S/o Shri Netram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Goth, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Beawar Depot, Beawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nagendra Sharma with Ms. Sunita Mehla for Mr. Sanjay Mahla For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/01/2026 1. It is apprise to the Court that present is second round of litigation. 2. Heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel. 3. Upon bare perusal of the material available on record, it has been observed that vide impugned order dated 28.04.2023, the petitioner, who was working as a Parichalak, has been dismissed/terminated from the service. It has been stated in the said impugned order that during the service period of the petitioner, spanning from year 2001 to 2016 (approximately fifteen years), as many as 38 cases were registered against the [2026:RJ-JP:315] (2 of 2) [CW-13411/2025] petitioner, pertaining to allegations of traveling without ticket, unauthorized absence, late deposit of collection amount, and other related misconducts. It has further been observed in the impugned order that the charges, particularly relating to willful absenteeism from duty, were found to be proved after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such conduct was considered to endanger the life and safety of passengers. The impugned order also reflects that the medical documents placed on record by the petitioner were examined but the same were found to be unconvincing and insufficient to justify the misconduct of the petitioner. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order and the reasoning cited therein, no interference is warranted by this Court against the impugned order dated 28.04.2023. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/66