- (1.) HAVING unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 28.11.2006 of the Managing Director of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), affirming his dismissal from service, the appellant/writ -petitioner is in appeal for redress.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Suresh Kashyap, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the respondents. The facts, in brief, necessary to be noticed, are that the appellant/writ -petitioner had, in his application for appointment to the post of driver with the Corporation, made on 25.05.1979, mentioned his date of birth as 05.08.1949. According to him, subsequent thereto, he, having realised that he had mentioned a wrong date of birth, submitted an application on 30.10.1979 quoting it to be 18.09.1952. The appellant/writ - petitioner has averred that after joining the Corporation, he initially was affiliated with the Labour Union, INTUC and left it to join another Trade Union affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh. On the complaint of INTUC, as alleged by him, with regard to the issue of change of date of birth, the respondent -Corporation initiated an enquiry and a memorandum of charge was served on him. He participated in the enquiry and eventually, by order dated 29.11.1994 of the Chief Manager of the Corporation, he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ -petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. According to him, on 16.09.1995 when the appeal was pending before the said authority i.e. General Manager (Operation -II), the power of hearing such departmental appeals, amongst others, relatable to driver in the Corporation (daily wages and regular), was delegated to the Executive Director(Mechanical). The appellant/writ - petitioner has averred that in spite thereof, the appeal was heard and dismissed by the General Manager(Operation -II) on 18.09.1995. He, thereafter, filed an application for review of that determination, amongst others, on the ground that the General Manager(Operation -II) was not competent to hear the appeal. According to him, the review application/appeal was transferred to the Executive Director(Mechanical) by the Managing Director of the Corporation and the former [Executive Director (Mechanical)}, on 30.03.1996, modified the punishment as herein below: - (i) He would not be entitled for the salary and all other benefits due from the date of termination from the service to the date of resumption of the charge/duty. (ii) He would be posted at Vaishali Nagar, Depot, Jaipur" It was, thereafter, that a show cause notice dated 06.07.1996 was issued to him to explain as to why the order dated 30.03.1996 passed by the Executive Director(Mechanical) would not be declared invalid. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the appellant/writ -petitioner approached this Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3450/1996, in which by an interim order dated 12.09.1996, the impugned notice dated 06.07.1996 was kept in abeyance. According to the appellant/writ -petitioner, he, thus, continued in service. However the writ petition was dismissed on 02.08.2006, whereafter by the impugned order dated 28.11.2006, the Managing Director of the Corporation annulled the order dated 30.03.1996 of the Executive Director (Mechanical). In essence, thus, his dismissal was restored.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge being essentially of the view that the appeal of the appellant/writ -petitioner having been once examined and dismissed by the General Manager(Operation), fresh appeal against the penalty of dismissal before the Executive Director(Mechanical) was not sustainable. The learned Single Judge was of the view that even assuming that the General Manager(Operation -II) had wrongly decided his appeal, he ought to have filed an application for review of the said decision or taken resort to other remedies available in law. Apart therefrom, the learned Single Judge held that the charge levelled against the appellant/writ - petitioner having been proved in a duly conducted enquiry, in exercise of this Court's power of judicial review, no interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was called for. The writ petition was, thus, dismissed.;