LAWS(RAJ)-2022-3-193

RSRTC Vs. NAWAL KISHORE GUPTA

Decided On March 23, 2022
RSRTC Appellant
V/S
Nawal Kishore Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dtd. 29/1/1999 in Appeal No.291/1986 passed by Additional District Judge, No.2, Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 13/12/1985 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate Ajmer City (East) in Civil Suit No.178/1982 whereby while termination order of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as null and void.

(2.) The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on permanent basis but on 17/6/1982 while he was on duty at Bus No.1065, the vehicle was inspected by the vigilance squad of RSRTC and he was booked for offences of carrying three passengers without issuing tickets, although fair had already been received and pocketed by him. On the criminal charges, he was tried before the Judicial Magistrate (Traffic) Ajmer who punished the plaintiff for ten days simple imprisonment. On the basis of his conviction, he was terminated on 17/6/1982 itself. Copy of order was not provided and services of plaintiff were terminated by defendant RSRTC without providing opportunity of hearing and in violation of Order 35 of the Standing Orders of RSRTC. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, on 18/6/1982 under apprehension that he may be removed and prayed for temporary injunction, if he has been terminated, thus challenging termination order dtd. 17/6/1982 alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service without conducting any enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing. Plaintiff prayed for declaring his termination order as illegal and void and claimed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The RSRTC filed written statement contending that plaintiff was not on duty while he filed suit nor he was permanent employee. On inspection by the vigilance team, he was found guilty as three passengers were found without tickets and he was punished for imprisonment of ten days simple imprisonment. Other objections as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court were also raised.