Allowed

C M R S R T C v. Ranveer Singh and Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2019CW/15451/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an Industrial Tribunal order that had set aside a railway conductor's removal. Upholding the removal, the Court held the Tribunal erred in ignoring preponderance of evidence and the respondent's extensive prior misconduct history.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 9.12.2010 quashed; removal order dated 13.5.1998 upheld.

C M R S R T C Vs Ranveer Singh and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 15451/2011

C M R S R T C

----Petitioner

Versus

Ranveer Singh And Anr

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vinayak Joshi For Respondent(s) : Dr.P.C.Jain with Mr.Amit Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

18/01/2019

¶12

Vide order dated 13.5.1998, the respondent was removed from service. There were four charge-sheets issued to the respondent wherein enquiry was conducted and the respondent was held to be guilty in all the four cases. That apart, the removal order also mentions of the previous record of the respondentconductor and takes into account as many as 26 earlier instances where either punishments have been awarded or charge-sheets were pending relating to the allegations of allowing the passengers to travel without ticket. The instances mentioned relate to years 1985, 1986, 1987 upto 1997.

¶13

The case of the counsel for the petitioner is that when aforesaid removal order was placed for approval before the Judge, Industrial Tribunal under Sec.33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1947’), the Judge, Industrial Tribunal discussed the four charge-sheets in the

¶14

[CW-15451/2011]

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

departmental enquiry and found three of them to be unfair while one of enquiry was held to be fair and proper. However, while allowing the petitioner to lead evidence before the Tribunal, the Judge, Industrial Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the charges could not be said to be proved in all the four chargesheets and the respondent was held to be exonerated in all the four cases and accordingly the Judge, Industrial Tribunal has disapproved the removal order.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to the evidence which was recorded before the Tribunal and submits that the findings arrived at the Tribunal are perverse inasmuch as it is observed that independent witnesses ought to have been produced to prove the charge against the respondent conductor of allowing the passengers to travel without ticket. The counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this court in SBCW No.18538/2011 (RSRTC Vs. Bhopal Singh) decided on 1.10.2018 wherein this court has observed that in cases of inspection of bus relating to the passengers traveling without ticket, the evidence of the members of the Inspecting Team is sufficient and no perversity can be said to be committed if no independent witness is examined. The court has relied upon the preponderance of evidence in departmental enquiry as the underlying principle for holding the same. The counsel also submits that with regard to one of the enquiry where Industrial Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that enquiry was fair and proper, there was no occasion to re-examine the evidence on merits by the Industrial Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal holding the charges not to be proved, was therefore, erroneous and perverse. The counsel for

¶18

[CW-15451/2011]

¶19

(3 of 5)

¶20

the petitioner further submits that previous conduct of the Conductor as mentioned in the removal order has also not been noticed by the Tribunal while disapproving the removal order.

¶21

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent workman supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that this court has limited jurisdiction and would not substitute its own findings in place of the findings already given by the Tribunal. The evidence which has been recorded by the Tribunal, has to be examined at the said level alone and re-appreciation of evidence at this stage under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible.

¶22

Counsel for the respondent workman further submits that the findings of the Tribunal that the charges are not made out in that four charge-sheets and thus any logical conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal of setting aside the removal order does not warrant any interference.

¶23

I have heard counsel for the parties and find that the Judge, Industrial Tribunal has re-appreciated the evidence while examining one of the of the enquiry wherein the court had already reached to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair. In other words the evidence which has come on record before the Tribunal, has been looked into by the Tribunal and has not been believed on the ground that there is no independent witnesses supporting the charges alleged by the petitioner. The statements recorded before the Tribunal have not been believed on the ground that there was no documentary evidence placed along with the affidavit. The

¶24

[CW-15451/2011]

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

Tribunal has failed to take notice of the affidavit wherein there was mentioning of tickets which had been issued by the Inspecting Team. It is on the ground that copy of the concerned tickets or details relating to the said tickets were not produced as evidence. In the opinion of this court, such an approach adopted by the Tribunal was not called for. It is settled law that in the departmental enquiry, it is the preponderance of evidence which has only to be seen and the charges are not to be proved beyond all doubt as similar to that in a court. The evidence which has come on record in departmental enquiry, relates to the charges and supports the charges. The prosecution is not required to bring strict proof of evidence for further support of the allegation and it is noticed that in all four charge-sheets, the concerned departmental evidence had come on record showing that the respondent conductor had allowed passengers to travel without ticket. This court in Bhopal Singh’s case (supra) held that merely because independent witnesses have not been examined during the departmental proceedings or merely because the passengers traveled without tickets have not been brought in evidence, the charge would not fail.

¶27

Another aspect which this court noticed is that while examining the order of removal, the Tribunal under Sec.33(2)(b) of the Act is required to examine the said order to see whether the decision making process has been followed or not. Once it finds that there is a decision making process which has been duly followed, the Tribunal would not set aside or fail to approve such an order while exercising its powers under Sec.33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority while

¶28

[CW-15451/2011]

¶29

(5 of 5)

¶30

passing the removal order has not only found that the charge under four different charge-sheets were proved but also found that there were 26 other instances wherein allegations have been leveled against the concerned Conductor of misconduct which also included allowing the passengers to travel without tickets on several occasions. The departmental enquiry relating to said charges were pending and in some of the cases, punishments have also been imposed on the concerned conductor.

¶31

Taking an overall view of the conduct of the respondent, the conscious decision was arrived at to remove him from service. This aspect which was one of the part of decision making process, has not been examined by the Tribunal while disapproving the order of removal. Thus this court disagrees with the order passed by the Tribunal and finds that there was no occasion for interfering with the removal order passed by the petitioner RSRTC.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the removal order passed of the respondent dated 13.5.1998 is upheld. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶33

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶34

Sandeep/-30

C M R S R T C v. Ranveer Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C M R S R T C v. Ranveer Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Meena S/O Shri Ram Narayan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

O/L of M/S Sidh Plantation and Farms Ltd. Vs Manak Chand Nahata and Others

Sheikh Nahidullah Khan Son of Shri Azizullah Khan, Vs Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation

Govindram Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Constable Suresh Kumar Vs U O I and Ors.

Chief Manager R S R T C Vs Smt Hardei