Allowed

Sarnath Gurjar v. R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC30 Aug 2024CW/7194/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a disciplinary punishment order imposed on a Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation employee for alleged diesel wastage. Finding that the Enquiry Officer had not found charges proved, the Court held that the Disciplinary Authority violated natural justice by rejecting these findings without issuing a disagreement notice or providing a further opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned punishment order dated 10.03.2015 is quashed and set aside; respondents are at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry after affording a due opportunity of hearing.

Sarnath Gurjar Vs R S R T C and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7194/2015

¶3

Sarnath Gurjar S/o Shri Mewaram Gurjar aged about 38 years, resident of Village Narpatyawas Tehsil Jamvaramgarh District Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

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

¶8

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vaishali Nagar Depot, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M.Bairwa Ms. Anamika Arora

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

30/08/2024

Reportable

In the present writ petition, the issue arises for consideration of this Court is that “when the Enquiry Officer, during the course of disciplinary proceedings comes to the conclusion that the charges alleging misconduct against the delinquent employee are not proved then whether the Disciplinary Authority can differ from them and give a contrary finding without affording any opportunity to the delinquent employee”.

¶16

[CW-7194/2015]

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been punished with penalty of payment of Rs. 1,407/- on the charge that excess volume of diesel was consumed by the vehicle plied by the petitioner.

¶19

Counsel submits that a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner with the allegation that excess volume of diesel was consumed by the vehicle plied by the petitioner, which caused financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 2,814/-. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid chargesheet was submitted by the petitioner and it was stated therein that on account of fault in the FI pump, excess volume of diesel was consumed by the vehicle. Counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer was satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and did not find any charges to be proved against the petitioner but without issuing any disagreement note/notice to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has straightaway passed the impugned punishment order against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the consumption of excess volume of diesel by the vehicle does not amount to misconduct in any manner on the part of the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶20

Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner, excess volume of diesel was consumed by the vehicle, which has caused financial loss to the respondent-Corporation. Counsel submits that for the purpose of comparative study when the same vehicle was

¶21

(3 of 6) [CW-7194/2015]

¶22

plied by two different people, it was found that the average/mileage of the vehicle and consumption of the diesel was less, as compared to one when the same vehicle was plied by the petitioner, therefore, the loss was caused by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment order was rightly passed against the petitioner, which requires no interference of this Court.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that with regard to the aforesaid charges, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner wherein detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner and on being satisfied with reply of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not find charges, as proved against the petitioner but without issuing any disagreement note/notice to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has straightaway passed the punishment order against the petitioner, ignoring the settled principles of service jurisprudence.

¶24

It is well settled that where Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former and in case of disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority has to record the reasons for disagreement after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent, may record his own finding if the evidence available on the record is sufficient for exercising such power to impose penalty or else to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry.

¶25

[CW-7194/2015]

¶26

(4 of 6)

¶27

Hence it is clear that where the Disciplinary Authority is not in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and if no disagreement notice is issued to the delinquent employee, then such denial of opportunity of hearing is per se violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶28

In the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India, reported in 1995(6) SCC 157 , hence the Supreme Court has held in para 10 as under:-

¶29

“The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report of he may offer additional reasons in support of the findings by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show-cause notice it amount to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect."

¶30

In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others. Vs.

¶31

Kunj Behari Misra, reported in 1998(7) SCC 84, the Hon’ble

¶32

Apex Court in para 19 has held as under:-

¶33

[CW-7194/2015]

¶34

(5 of 6)

¶35

“The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

¶36

In view of the above, it can be safely held that a delinquent employee has the right of hearing not only during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer into the charges levelled against him, but also at the stage at which these findings are considered by the Disciplinary Authority and later on the Disciplinary Authority forms a tentative opinion that it does not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If the findings are recorded in favour of the delinquent that the charges are not found to be proved, then it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to give opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before recording such findings.

¶37

[CW-7194/2015]

¶38

(6 of 6)

¶39

Here in this case also the Enquiry Officer does not find the charges proved against the petitioner but going beyond the mandatory provisions of service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority has straightaway passed the impugned punishment order against the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned punishment order is legally not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶40

13 Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 10.03.2015 stands quashed and set aside. 14. The respondents would be at liberty to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to him.

¶41

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶44

Ashu/131

Sarnath Gurjar v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarnath Gurjar v. R S R T C 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

Kalawati Pareta D/O Chouth Mal Pareta W/O Badri Lal Pareta Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagendra Kumar Katara Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Smt. Razia Sultana Wife of Mohd. Ashafaq Vs State of Rajasthan

Manglaram and Ors. Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Sunita Sharma D/O Manohar Lal Sharma Vs the Director