RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER Vs. VISHWAS SUMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 11.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur, where the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1994 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, has been affirmed. Plaintiff was working on the post of Conductor with the appellant Corporation. He was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Traffic) 1st Class, Jodhpur, vide order dated 26.03.1981 for offence under Section 8 of the Without Ticket Travelling Prevention Act, 1975. The appellant No. 2 herein, on the basis of judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate (Traffic), Jodhpur, removed the plaintiff -respondent from service by order dated 27.03.1981. However, the order of conviction was challenged by the plaintiff -respondent before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who by order dated 14.11.1981 set aside the order of conviction and remanded the matter. Ultimately, vide order dated 02.08.1989, the plaintiff -respondent was acquitted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant has argued that learned trial court ought not to have entertained the suit at Jaipur because plaintiff -respondent was working at Jalore depot of the defendant Corporation, which falls within the jurisdiction of Jalore District. The cause of action, if any, has arisen to the plaintiff in District Jalore or Jodhpur, therefore, the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court. The order of removal dated 27.03.1981 and it was only in 1993 that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration on the basis of the judgment dated 02.08.1989. The suit was therefore time barred. The findings recorded by learned trial court on issue No. 4 was therefore perverse and erroneous. Learned courts below have committed serious illegality in deciding the issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The issue No. 1 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Charge against the plaintiff -respondent was for carrying passengers without ticket, which amounts to serious misconduct and thereby justified removal from service. However, subsequent acquittal of the plaintiff in criminal case cannot be a ground to challenge the removal order from service vide order dated 27.03.1981.

(3.) IN so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, this court in Mangi Lal and Another v. Rajendra Singh and Another - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1774/2010 decided on 02.11.2011, dealt with similar objection as to the territorial jurisdiction, wherein also RSRTC was impleaded as party through its Chairman. While relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company - : AIR 1992 SC 1514, this court therein held as under: - -