NEMICHAND SHARMA Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, RSRTC, PALI DEPOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 16.02.2012 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.9916/2011) preferred against the award dated 18.03.2011 made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the reference proceedings relating to the domestic inquiry. In the impugned award dated 18.03.2011, the Labour Court, Jodhpur found established the charges of misconduct against the petitioner-appellant and hence, held justified the order of his removal with forfeiture of wages for suspension period.

(2.) In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter could be taken into comprehension in the following: The petitionerappellant was employed as a Conductor with the respondent-Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation'), Pali Depot. On 29.01.2003, while he was assigned the duty on a bus enroute Pali to Jaipur, the vehicle was intercepted and checked by the officers of the Corporation near Loriya. The allegations against the petitioner-appellant had been that at the time of inspection, six passengers travelling from Sojat (Mod Bhatta) to Chandawal were found without tickets, though he had already realised the fare. A remark in that regard was entered in the way bill and a Bus Checking Report (BCR) was also prepared, which was signed by the appellant and the driver of the vehicle.

(3.) Based on the aforesaid allegations, the disciplinary proceedings were taken up against the appellant; he was placed under suspension; and a charge-sheet dated 13.02.2003 was served. As pointed out by the Inquiry Officer in his report (Annex.4), the stand of the appellant in the reply had been that six passengers boarded the bus at Mod Bhatta and gave one Rs.500/- currency note towards fare; that soon after his returning Rs.440/- to them, the vehicle was intercepted; and that the inspecting party, though apprised of the fact that tickets were to be issued to these six passengers, did not pay any heed to his submissions. The appellant submitted that there was no mala fide intention on his part and prayed for exoneration. The Inquiry Officer, however, pointed out that the appellant did not appear before him despite notice and, with reference to the statements of the complainant i.e., the Assistant Traffic Inspector, returned the finding that the charge against the delinquent i.e., the appellant stood proved.