[2026:RJ-JP:14277-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 860/2020 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8641/2020 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dausa Aagar. ----Appellant Versus 1. (Deceased) Rohitash Kumawat S/o Shri Ramjilal, Ex- Driver.r/o Vpo- Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 2. Batto Devi W/o Late Shri Rohitash, R/o Vpo-Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). 3. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Rohitash, R/o Vpo-Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). 4. Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Rohitash, R/o Vpo-Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). 5. Mamta D/o Late Shri Rohitash, R/o Vpo-Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). 6. Anita D/o Late Shri Rohitash, R/o Vpo-Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Paliwal for Mr. R.A. Katta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/04/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-corporation challenging the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:14277-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-860/2020] 2. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant–Corporation has observed as under:- 3. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the learned Industrial Tribunal after examining each and every charge-sheet and the enquiry conducted by the concerned enquiry officer has reached to the conclusion that in the first charge-sheet, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry in a single day and did not give any opportunity to defend; in the second charge-sheet, although the workman was not present, however, it was mentioned that charge was read over to the workman and the workman refused to conduct any cross-examination and similarly, in the third charge-sheet also, the workman was not present but a wrong noting was given, as above that the workman was present and refused cross-examination and thereafter the enquiry proceedings were closed and in fourth and fifth charge-sheets also, similarly it was mentioned that the workman was present although he was not present. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the enquiry was unfair. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any document to prove that the workman was present during enquiry. On the other hand, from the enquiry proceedings, it is also noticed that the concerned enquiry officer has mentioned at a place that the workman was not present. In view thereof, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Moreso, as the concerned workman has expired, no further enquiry could be conducted. 5. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned Tribunal disapproving the punishment order and rejecting the application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947 is perfectly justified and in accordance with law. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. [2026:RJ-JP:14277-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-860/2020] 4. The learned Single Judge has observed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the concerned workman has expired; therefore, no further inquiry can be conducted. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 860/2020 is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PREETI VALECHA /MONU/49