Rakshapal Yadav Vs R S R T C and Anr.

[2025:RJ-JP:12133]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1200/2018

Rakshapal Yadav S/o Shri Ganpat Ram Yadav, R/o Village Kalwaniyo Ka Baas, Nayan Post Amarsar Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Officer, Parivahan Marg, Chomu Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Managing Director

¶8

Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur Depot Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Mahendra Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Rajpal Dhankar
	Ms.Vinita Saini for
	Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

18/03/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Radha Krishan Saini Vs. RSRTC & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16483/2012 vide order dated 27.04.2018. Counsel submits that the instant writ petition be also disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra).

¶15

Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides and looking to the fact that the issue involved in the instant writ

[2025:RJ-JP:12133]

[CW-1200/2018]

(2 of 3)

petition has already been decided in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra), it would be significant to reproduce observations and directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench, which reads as follows:-

¶20

“The matter comes up on the misc. application No.12355/2018 filed for early listing of the case. However, with the consent of the parties the present petition is disposed of at this stage.

¶21

The petitioner has challenged order dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2012, Annex.-8 & 9 respectively, in the instant petition whereby he has been directed to deposit of Rs.66,437/- on account of loss of ticket bag and ETM machine.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is illegal and this Court in SBCWP No. 12641/2012 [Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.], SBCWP No.10692/2012 [Rajkumar Tak Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] & SBCWP No.13500/2012 [Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.] decided by a common order dt.12.09.2013 has taken a view that if there is no allegation against a person of deliberate act or there is nothing on record to show that the tickets lost in theft or otherwise, were misused causing financial loss to the corporation and as such in absence of these facts, no action can be taken by the respondents-RSRTC. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case the petitioner had also lodged FIR No.452/2012 immediately on loss of ticket bags and ETM machine vide (Annex.-1) dt.26.07.2012.

¶23

Mr. Vinayak Joshi, counsel for the respondents who is present in the Court submits that legal proposition is already settled by this Court and as such he submits that this Court may decide the present controversy as well. This Court finds that the impugned orders dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2018 (Annex.- 8 & 9) respectively are not legally sustainable.

[2025:RJ-JP:12133]

[CW-1200/2018]

(3 of 3)

This Court is further of the opinion that the respondents in the impugned orders dt.31.08.2012 & 28.09.2012 have nowhere said that loss of ticket bag and ETM machine, has resulted into causing financial loss to the Corporation.

¶28

The present writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned orders dt.28.09.2012 & 31.08.2012 (Annex.-8 & 9) respectively are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are free to recover the actual cost of ticket bag and ETM machine from the petitioner after giving him show cause notice.

¶29

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

¶30

In view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the similar directions issued in the case of Radha Krishan Saini (supra), and the impugned award dated 28.11.2017 passed by the respondents stands quashed and setaside.

¶31

However, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the actual cost of ticket bag from the petitioner and refund the remaining recovered amount, if any, after giving him notice for the same.

¶32

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

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

Aayush Sharma /159

Rakshapal Yadav v. R S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakshapal Yadav v. R S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chouthmal (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Panna Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Kalulal Meena S/O Sh. Gangaram Meena Vs Manager

Balkrishna Sharma Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Lt

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Shivprashad S/O Shri Amarchand

Lokesh Sharma Son of Shri Abhay Nath Ji Vs the Union of India

Amolak Sain Vs U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr