The High Court filed this order dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty imposed on a conductor for earning less income than colleagues. The court found no illegality as the petitioner admitted charges and denied jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts.
Writ application rejected; interim stay vacated; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3339/2007 Ram Gopal Sharma Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Date of Order :: 8th July, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
None present for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Sharma for Mr.R.D. Rastogi for respondents.
<><><>
BY THE COURT :
Writ proceedings were instituted in the year 2007 and on 27th July, 2007 while issuing notice to the respondents, the impugned recovery was stayed by this Court. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner appeared before the Court to prosecute the writ application, when the matter was called. The learned counsel for the respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the respondent Corporation'), insisted for hearing of the matter in view of the interim order operating. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proceeded to hear and decide the matter.
2
Conductors in the month of June, 2005.
3
a bare perusal of the Enquiry Report and the impugned order dated 6th March, 2007, would reveal that the action of the respondent Corporation is perfectly legal and valid. The learned counsel would further submit that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited only to the extent of decision making process; since there is no illegality in the decision making process, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the writ application involves seriously disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon without leading evidence and therefore, the matter is not within the writ jurisdiction of this Court on that count as well.
4
from communication dated 4th May, 2006 (Annexure-R/3).
5
hearing and written response, if any, within seven days.
6
ticket; speaks volumes about the manner of discharge of duties by the petitioner. Thus, the statement made to the effect that the services of the petitioner have been to the utmost satisfaction of the higher Authorities of the respondent – Corporation, is far from truth in view of the details contained in Schedule-A.
shall be no order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.
Sunil/P.A.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with a departmental enquiry finding where the petitioner admitted the charges.
Whether the writ application challenging the penalty for less income earned has any substance regarding illegality in the decision-making process.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Gopal Sharma
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
