Dismissed

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2019SAW/317/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against setting aside the single judge's dismissal of a writ petition challenging the industrial tribunals refusal to approve dismissal of a driver. Single judge upheld tribunal decision due to lack of evidence. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the single judge; appeal against that order dismissed.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 317/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20264/2018

¶5

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/o Shri Devilal, Resident Of Village And Post Para, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi, Advocate

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶12

04/12/2019

¶13

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the procedure for conducting the enquiry had been followed, then it was not open for the Tribunal to have reappreciated the evidence recorded during the enquiry. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2013 held that the enquiry against the respondent was fair and proper. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Coimbatore) Limited Versus M. Chandrasekaran (2016)16 SCC 894, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶15

“12. The moot question is about the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[SAW-317/2019]

¶18

Labour (Conciliation) whilst considering an application for approval of order of punishment under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(the Act). It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is a limited one. That jurisdiction cannot be equated with that of the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court in the case of Cholan Roadways observed thus:

¶19

“18. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering an application for grant of approval has succinctly been stated by this Court in Martin Burn Ltd. Vs R.N. Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79). While exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regard the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent; keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is granted, the order of discharge or dismissal which may be passed against the delinquent employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Martin Burn’s case this court stated:

¶20

“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record. (See Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. Vs The Workers of the Company)

¶21

x------x------x------x------x------x---------x

¶22

16. In our opinion, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Enquiry

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SAW-317/2019]

¶25

Officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the Disciplinary Authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence produced during the enquiry by the Department, in relation to the charges framed against the respondent. Whether the decision of the Disciplinary Authority of dismissing the respondent is just and proper, could be assailed by the respondent in appropriate proceedings. Considering the fact that there was adequate material produced in the Departmental enquiry evidencing that fatal accident was caused by the respondent while driving the vehicle on duty, the burden to prove that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence was on the respondent. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the fact situation in the present case.”

¶26

The respondent who was working as a driver under the appellant was served with a charge-sheet dated 11.06.1996 alleging that he had been driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and as a result one person had died. Another chargesheet was also issued to the respondent alleging that due to his rash and negligent driving, 5 persons had died in a road side accident and 6 persons had suffered serious injuries. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the respondent were duly proved and thereafter, respondent was ordered to be dismissed from service. The appellant filed an application under Section 33(2)B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Tribunal for approval of the proposed penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent. The Tribunal rejected the application moved by the appellant and held that the order of penalty was not proper and valid.

¶27

Aggrieved against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, appellant preferred writ petition before this Court. Vide impugned order dated 19.09.2018 writ petition filed by the

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[SAW-317/2019]

¶30

appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

¶31

Although, in the present case, vide order dated 18.09.2013 an order was passed by the Tribunal that the enquiry was fair and proper, but the Tribunal after going through the evidence on record found that in fact, it was a case of no evidence and findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. It was noticed that the respondent had been acquitted in the criminal case. Hence, it was held that the action of the appellant in holding the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him was not made out and consequently, the order of termination dated 26.04.2000 was not approved. Thus, it can be said that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry as per Rules and due procedure had been followed, but the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on any evidence leading to the inference that the respondent had been driving the bus in question carelessly, negligently or at high speed.

¶32

Since, it was a case of no evidence, learned Tribunal rightly did not approve the order of termination dated 26.04.2000. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law settled vide the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the same fails to advance the case of the appellant, as it was based on different facts.

¶33

No ground for interference is made out.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶36

Goruav/Jatin -29

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

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

Badri Lal Rathore Son of Shri Gopilal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Graphtech Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri J.K. Upadhyay, Director

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited Vs Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

State of Rajasthan Vs Girdhari Lal Gupta S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop Gupta

Human Settlement Technology Ce Vs State of Raj and Ors.