AMAR CHAND Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 1977 with RSRTC he was served with a charge -sheet under clause 34 of the Standing Order on 1.7.1991 (Ex. 1). The respondent no.3 after considering the material on record imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dt. 12.8.1993 (Ex.4). The petitioner preferred an appeal (Ex.5) on 7.10.1993 and the respondent No.2 dismissed the same vide order dt. 8.11.1993 (Ex.6) on the ground that it is not maintainable as no appeal lies against the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition challenging the order Ex. 4 and Ex. 6.

(2.) IN pursuance to the show cause notice issued on 24.4.1995, the respondents have filed reply stating that disputed questions of fact are involved and alternative remedy is available in view of Gopilal Teli v. State 1995 WLC (Raj) 1. On merits it has been stated that enquiry report has been given to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing after enquiry was also given which was admitted by the petitioner vide Ex. R/5, in compliance of the personal hearing notice issued to petitioner vide Ex. R/4 dated 24.7.1993. It has also been stated that version taken In reply Ex.2 Is quite different to Ex. R/1 while joining duty and he has referred to document Anx. R/1. It has been further stated that the charge -sheet dt. 1.7.1991 was served on 3,7.1991 but the filed reply before the Enquiry Officer dispite time granted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report but the Disciplinary Authority after going through the material on record remanded the matter to the enquiry officer that the incumbent should be given a chance to defend himself. In compliance of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Officer again issued a notice and the petitioner appeared but ultimately he did not appear. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report but the Disciplinary Authority again remanded the matter. This time the petitioner appeared and cross -examined and sought time to produce evidence. Thereafter on completion of enquiry notice Anx.R -4 was issued by Disciplinary Authority and statement of workman was recorded vide Anx. R/5.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondents while following the principles of natural justice and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in such matters as alternative remedy is available. He has relied on the decisions reported in : (1996)IILLJ296SC , 1995 (1) SCC 75 and 1994 SCC 37.