I.S. Israni, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed with a prayer that award dated September 24, 1986 (Anx. 6) passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan and order dated November 23, 1983 (Anx. 3) passed by Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Kota, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be treated to be in service, as if no such orders had been passed and given all consequential benefits.
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. V.L. Mathur, learned counsel, that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the service of respondent No. 1 in the year, 1973 in permanent capacity. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated March 9, 1981 (Anx. 1), bur was re-instated pending enquiry vide order dated May 26, 1981 by the Works Manager (0), Raj. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC'). The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on March 1/2, 1981 and reply to the same was filed by the petitioner. The departmental enquiry was held by Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Kota, who agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and removed the petitioner from service of RSRTC w.e.f. November 23, 1983 (Anx. 3). The petitioner filed an appeal to the General Manager (Operational), RSRTC, which was, however, dismissed vide order dated December 28, 1983 (Anx. 5). The petitioner, therefore, raised a dispute before the Settlement Officer, but since no settlement could be arrived at, a failure report was submitted to the State Government and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, which passed an award dated September 24, 1986 (Anx. 6), by which, the termination of the services of the petitioner were held to be proper.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that the suspension, thereafter removal from the service and award, by which the termination has been held to be proper, on the following grounds, which were also agitated before the Industrial Tribunal and during the course of an enquiry and appeal:- (i) The petitioner was appointed and suspended and re instated by a Higher Authority than the Authority, which has awarded punishment to the petitioner which is in complete violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) The award is passed on no evidence regarding charges No. 2 and 3, which have been held to be proved by various authorities; (iii) The petitioner has been victimised by discriminatory treatment to him and removing him from the service, whereas no action at all was taken against other employees, who admittedly, were guilty of committing the same alleged act of indiscipline. The provisions of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act') were not considered while awarding punishment to the petitioner, as extreme punishment was not called for in any case, keeping in view the allegation made out against him.;