Dismissed

Chand Mal v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2024CW/3159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty and recovery order imposed on a bus driver for accident-related damages. The court upheld the penalties citing Standing Orders, 1965, validating recovery based on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's finding of the driver's negligence.

What did the court decide?

Penalty for stoppage of one grade increment and recovery of Rs. 95,442/- and Rs. 4,220/- were upheld.

Chand Mal Vs the Rajasthan State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:14719]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3159/2024

¶4

Chand Mal S/o Shri Kundan Mal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Regaran Mohalla, Dev Dungari, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) Presently Working As Driver At Udaipur Depot, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Executive Director (Administration), The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

The Chief Manager, The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur Depot District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya through VC

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

03/04/2024

¶15

The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 whereby along with the other penalty, Rs.95,442/- and Rs.4,220/- have been sought to be recovered from the petitioner qua the damage to the bus and the tyres of the bus respectively which were damaged in the accident caused while the petitioner was driving.

¶16

After an enquiry been conducted in the matter, vide order dated 30.01.2024, the petitioner has been penalised with a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and further, in terms of Section 37(iii) of the Rajasthan State Road

[2024:RJ-JD:14719]

[CW-3159/2024]

(2 of 3)

Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’), he has been held liable for recovery of an amount of Rs.95,442/- qua the damage to the bus and for an amount of Rs.4,220/- qua the damage to the tyre.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is totally contrary to the stand taken by the respondent – Corporation itself before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal wherein it was averred that the driver of the bus in question was not negligent. Once the respondent - Corporation itself asserted that the petitioner, i.e., the driver was not negligent, the order impugned passed with the finding that the petitioner was negligent, cannot be said to be tenable.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. It is clear on record that an accident was caused while the petitioner was driving the bus of the respondent – Corporation and in the said accident, a person even expired. An award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation qua the death of the said person has also been passed holding the driver of the bus to be negligent. Therefore, the stand of the respondent – Corporation that the driver of the bus was not negligent becomes irrelevant after the finding of the Tribunal that the driver was negligent, has been recorded. Hence, the penalties as imposed by the order impugned cannot be said to be in contravention to any law.

¶23

Further, so far as the recovery as sought to be made qua the damage to the property is concerned, Section 37(iii) of the

[2024:RJ-JD:14719]

[CW-3159/2024]

(3 of 3)

Standing Orders of 1965 governing the petitioner specifically provides that deduction from the wages of a worker for damage to or loss of property expressly entrusted to the employee for custody shall be permissible where such damage or loss is attributable for his negligence or default.

¶28

Herein, the specific negligence of the driver, that is, the petitioner, has been found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and hence, the recovery sought to be made from him by the respondent – Corporation cannot be faulted with. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hence, dismissed .

¶29

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

796-KashishS/-

Chand Mal v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Mal v. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Regar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanwari D/O Faiz Mohd and Ors. Vs Bhawari Devi and Anr.

Lokesh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kishore Pargee and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Meghwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Moti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan