MOHANLAL MALI Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Beawar whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration against order of dismissal and for consequential reliefs with regard to reinstatement in services of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed as conductor in services of the Corporation w.e.f. 22.3.1976 vide his appointment order (Ex. 1). He was confirmed as conductor from 7.8.1980 vide Ex. 2. Two charge sheets were issued and served on the appellant on (1) 29.10.1982 vide Exs. 3 and 4 and (2) on 16.12.1983 vide Exs. 11 and 12 by the management of the respondent Corporation. First charge sheet (Ex. 3) with statement of allegations (Ex. 4) was issued as a result of irregularities detected during the surprise checking by the Traffic Inspector made on 24.4.1982 while the appellant was on duty as Conductor to the Corporation's bus No. 4523 on Beawar Diwer route and during that checking, three passangers were found travelling without tickets. Second charge sheet (Ex. 11) with statement of allegations (Ex. 12) was issued for the checking made by the Traffic Inspector on 13.12.1983 while the appellant was on duty as Conductor to the Corporation's Bus No. 8109 playing on Beawar Udaipur route and during that checking, again three passengers were found travelling without tickets. As a result of his dereliction from duty on account of violation of the Corporation's Rules applicable under Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short, 'the Standing Orders'), the appellant was suspended twice from service of the Corporation 15.6.1983 and 16.12.1983 vide Ex. 6 and E.10 respectively because the disciplinary action was being contemplated against him. The order of suspension Ex. 6 was subsequently revoked on 30.8.1983 vide Ex. 9 thereby the appellant was given an opportunity to improve his conduct in service.

(3.) AFTER affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant during the course of disciplinary inquiry against him, and at the conclusion of the inquiry into the allegations of charges, the appellant was held guilty of the impugned charges of misconduct for the aforesaid two incidents under Section 34 of the Employees Standing Orders 1965 and accordingly punishment of termination from services of the Corporation was imposed upon the appellant on 9.3.1984 vide Ex. 14 against which the appellant submitted his appeal but his appeal was dismissed vide Ex. 15 on 31.5.1984. Thus, against the order of termination (Ex. 14) and appellate order (Ex. 15) the plaintiff appellant has filed suit for declaration challenging the same on grounds inter alia that the order of his termination was illegal, unconstitutional and was passed without following the principles of natural justice and hence null and void.