Allowed

Parbat Singh v. Raj. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2018CW/6761/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a writ petition filed by an employee of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation challenging an order for recovery due to loss of a bag during duty. Relying on prior precedent, the Court quashed the order and set aside the action against the petitioner, though respondents are permitted to impose suitable punishment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.04.2015 is quashed and set aside; respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate punishment.

Parbat Singh Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corpn… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 6761/2015

¶3

Parbat Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, r/o Sevaki Khurd, Tehsil – Baori, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Through Chairman, Jaipur.

¶7

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Through Chief Manager, Barmer.

¶8

Chief Manager, RSRTC, Barmer Depot, Barmer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Mankad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

06/08/2018

¶14

Application for preponement of date of hearing is allowed.

¶15

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage today.

¶16

By the instant writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to impugned order dated 28.04.2015 (Annex.5) passed by Chief Manager, Barmer Depot of the respondent-Corporation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while it is true that tickets worth Rs.54,826/- were lost but it cannot be said that the Corporation has suffered loss of the aforesaid amount so as to effect recovery from the petitioner. It is also argued by learned counsel that the bag in question was lost in transit when

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-6761/2015]

¶20

petitioner was on duty on the route from Barmer to Pipar and the bag was lost somewhere in between Barmer to Jodhpur which despite sincere endeavour could not be traced.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the tickets are lost because of gross negligence of the petitioner, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

¶22

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in Kalyan Prasad Sharma Vs. RSRTC Jaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8858/2002, decided on 09.07.2008). The Coordinate Bench in an identical situation has allowed the writ petition in following terms:-

¶23

“In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.10.2002 is set aside. The respondent-Corporation is free to pass an appropriate order imposing a suitable punishment on the petitioner as may be deemed appropriate in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the respondents.”

¶25

In view of above, the instant petition is also allowed and the

¶26

impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate punishment order against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

Bharti/101

Parbat Singh v. Raj. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parbat Singh v. Raj. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Binder Singh Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Ram Singh Jodha and Ors. Vs Secretary,Dept.of Education and Ors.

Mahipal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Asha Sharma Vs B.L. Swarnkar

Satya Prakash Trivedi Vs the M.D. Discom,Jodhpur and Ors.