GORDHAN RAM Vs. MD, RSRTC, JAIPUR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 11.9.2008 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.3958/1995 whereby the writ petitioner's petition challenging the order dated 12th July, 1993 passed by the employer RSRTC imposing penalty of withholding of 2 grade increments with cumulative effect and order of recovery of Rs.4,000/- for compensation for causing loss to the property of the RSRTC has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was assigned the duty on 2nd April, 1990 to drive the bus bearing no.RNP 1119. The said bus turned and fell down resulting into injuries to passengers, upon which the departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant and appellant was found guilty under Clause 34 of the Standing Order and has been punished under Clause 36(2) and 36(3) of the Standing Order and has been awarded punishments referred above. It has also been ordered that his salary for the period during which he remained under suspension would be forfeited. The appellant challenged the said order before the Single Bench of this court by filing the writ petition and this court held that merely on the basis of acquittal in criminal case registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the trial court in criminal case, the departmental proceedings taken independently cannot be dropped.

(3.) We perused the facts of the case and found that the inquiry was conducted by the Administrative Officer of the respondent and he found the petitioner guilty on the basis of the independent evidence as well as on the basis of the fact admitted that appellant was driver of the vehicle and the vehicle turned down on road resulting into injuries to the number of passengers. The defence taken by the appellant was rejected that on road Ox were fighting and because of the reason, the bus turned down. It is not the case of the appellant that all of sudden any animal came on road and appellant could not have seen the fighting Ox in time and could not have taken care of stopping the bus, but it appears that vehicle was so fast, therefore, instead of stopping the same, the vehicle turned down. Be it as it may be, there was no reasonable reason to hold that the appellant was not guilty for the liability which is less penal in character as compared to the punishment, which can be imposed in criminal proceedings. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant was rightly held guilty. So far as the punishment is concerned, that appears to be quite reasonably awarded and cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.