Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
R S R T C Through M D And Others vs Lala Ram Meena Through Lrs on 28 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:17644]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 183/2015
1. Rajashtan State Road Transport Corporation through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
2. Chief Manager, RSRTC, Kotputli Depot
3. Zonal Manager (Jaipur Zone) RSRTC (Head Office) Jaipur
Parivahan marg Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lala Ram Meena (Deceased) S/o Shri Bhonri Lal Meena, R/o
Village Nanglal Susawatan, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur Rajasthan
the Than Driver, RSRTC Kotputli Depot
1/1 Smt. Lali Devi W/o Late Shri Lala Ram Meena, aged about
43 years, R/o Nanglal Susawatan Teh Amer, Distt. Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 28/04/2025
The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and
decree dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in appeal Nos.10/2014
and 9/2014 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal No.
9/2014 filed by the defendants and while allowing the appeal No.
10/2014 filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’)
maintained the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2014 passed by
the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in civil
suit No. 292/2010 to the extent of cancelling the punishment
order No. 990 dated 21.12.2009 and while setting aside rest part
of judgment, the plaintiff was held entitled to get the service
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:00:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17644] (2 of 5) [CSA-183/2015]
benefits as if no punishment order was passed against him. Since
the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, his wife
was held entitled to get all the service benefits before and after
the death of the plaintiff.
Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit
mentioning therein that on 04.04.1993, he was appointed against
the permanent post of driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (for short ‘RSRTC’). During the service, a charge-
sheet was served to him on 20.05.2009. No relevant document
regarding the charge-sheet was directed to him. The inquiry
officer did not follow procedure laid down for conducting inquiry.
No witness was produced on behalf of the corporation. Inquiry
officer himself conducted the inquiry as a Public Prosecutor and a
Judge. After the inquiry, plaintiff’s services were terminated on
21.12.2009 in violation of the principles of natural justice. So, the
order dated 21.12.2009 be set aside.
Defendants filed the written statement and denied the
averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff had
submitted his reply on 08.10.2009 and he had not sought any
document. Mr. L.P. Joshi, UDC was appointed as a Departmental
Representative. Notice of personal hearing was given to the
plaintiff but he did not attend the personal hearing and did not
submit the medical certificate. So, the competent authority rightly
passed the termination order and civil court had no jurisdiction to
try it.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed
the following issues:-
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:00:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17644] (3 of 5) [CSA-183/2015]
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the
termination order No. 990 dated 21.12.2009 issued by
the defendants declared as illegal and void being
against the principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive all the
service benefits as were being made available prior to
the termination order No. 990 dated 21.12.2009?
3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action?
4. Whether the trial Court court had no jurisdiction to
try the suit?
5. Relief?
To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-
Lalaram Meena and to prove its case, defendants got examined
DW-1- Madan Lal Bairwa. During the pendency of the suit, the
original plaintiff expired and his wife was substituted in his place.
After hearing the parties, trial Court vide judgment dated
05.07.2014, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the
termination order No. 990 dated 21.12.2009 was declared as null
and void being contrary to the principle of natural justice. The trial
Court also directed that the absence period medical applications of
the deceased be decided and the benefits whereof be given to the
legal heirs of the deceased within two months, failing which the
said amount shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum.
Plaintiff as well as defendants challenged the said judgment
passed by the trial Court by way of appeals. Learned Appellate
Court vide judgment dated 28.01.2015 dismissed the appeal filed
by the defendants and maintained the judgment dated 05.07.2014
passed by the trial Court qua cancelling the termination order
No.990 dated 21.12.2009 and while setting aside rest part of the
judgment passed by the trial Court, held him entitled to get the
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:00:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17644] (4 of 5) [CSA-183/2015]
service benefits as if no suspension order was passed against him.
Since the plaintiff expired during the pendency of the suit, his wife
Lali Devi was held entitled to get all the service benefits before
and after the death of the original plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that learned trial
Court as well as learned Appellate Court have not appreciated the
evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to try the suit. Only Industrial Tribunal had
jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the trial Court as well as Appellate
Court had committed an error in deciding the issue of jurisdiction
against the defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that
inquiry was conducted in right manner. Charge-sheet was served
to the plaintiff (deceased) and he filed the reply. He had not
sought for any document and had not adduced any evidence in
support of his case. So, the competent authority rightly passed
the termination order dated 21.12.2009. So, the present appeal
deserves to be allowed on the substantial questions of law.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the
trial Court as well as Appellate Court rightly came to the
conclusion that Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the
case because during inquiry, principle of natural justice was
violated, only civil court had jurisdiction for setting aside the
termination order passed by the defendants.
Learned counsel further submits that during inquiry, no
document was directed to the deceased and no opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses was given to him. So, the trial Court
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:00:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17644] (5 of 5) [CSA-183/2015]
as well as appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that
termination order dated 21.12.2009 was not in accordance with
law. So, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and no
substantial question of law is made out. So, the appeal be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned judgments.
It is an admitted position that civil court had jurisdiction to
try the suit because during inquiry, the principle of natural justice
was violated and learned trial Court as well as appellate Court
clearly held that inquiry was not done as per the law and no
opportunity of hearing was given to the deceased employee. So, I
find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by
the courts below. Accordingly, second appeal filed by the
defendants is dismissed as no substantial question of law is made
out.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/66
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:00:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)