The Court quashed a penalty imposed on a conductor for generating less revenue than peers, holding that revenue generation depends on multiple factors beyond the employee's control and following the precedent in Leela Dhar.
Quashing of the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sirohi Depot.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:28992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2164/2018
Fateh Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Sohan Lal, B/c Kumawat, R/o Rishi Nagar, Rishikesh Road, Near P And T Building, Manpur, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukesh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Iqbal Khan for Mr. Harish Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order
16/07/2024
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:28992]
[CW-2164/2018]
No.2941/2010 (Leela Dhar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) and submitted that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Leela Dhar (supra) .
“Indisputably, the petitioner was charge sheeted for collecting less revenue while discharging duty on various Bus schedules during the period 1.4.02 to 28.2.05. The charge sheet issued does not disclose the basis for calculation of the average income. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was apprised about the less revenue collection during the aforesaid period at least at the end of each year. In considered opinion of this court, the petitioner was absolutely justified in submitting that had he been apprised about the collection of revenue below average earlier, he would have explained the factual position effectively. There is no allegation levelled against the petitioner that though the passengers load on the various routes while he was discharging duties as per the Bus schedules was more yet, he did not made efforts for motivating the commuter public to travel in the Corporation buses. In absence of any allegation regarding the lapses/negligence
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:28992]
[CW-2164/2018]
on the part of the petitioner in generating the revenue, he cannot be held liable for collecting the revenue below average.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the charge sheet explaining that why the allegations levelled against him do not constitute ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of clause 34 of the Standing Orders, 1963. However, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority reveals that the stand of the petitioner has simply not been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority. The findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority are not supported by reasons. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority has merely recorded its ipse dixit without considering the record of enquiry and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non speaking order and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
(FARJAND ALI),J
85-Ashutosh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a penalty imposed on a conductor for generating lower revenue compared to others is sustainable in law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leela DharFollowed¶16
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2941/2010 (Leela Dhar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation)
Fateh Lal Kumawat
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director
The Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
The Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
The Chief Manager/ Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
FARJAND ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
