Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Corporation', for short), in the instant writ petition, projects a challenge to the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 2nd July, 1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') interfering with the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978 imposing a penalty of two annual grade increments on the respondent/workman (Surendra Singh Rajawat). Shron off the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are: That the petitioner Corporation raised an industrial dispute in the matter of penalty imposed on one Shri Surendra Singh Rajawat (respondent/workman) stopping two annual grade increments vide order dated 8th May, 1978. The respondent/workman was also punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17th May, 1979. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the pleaded facts; statement of claim and reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner Corporation as well as the evidence led by the parties, passed the impugned award dated 2nd July, 1997 setting aside the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978 for stoppage of two annual grade increments. However, the order of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17th May, 1979, was upheld. On 12th December, 1977, a charge -sheet was served on the respondent/workman as he was carrying 19 passengers without ticket on 18th November, 1977, while discharging his duty as Conductor on Bus No. 2060 of the petitioner Corporation on Vansthali -Jaipur Route. The Inspection Team found the Conductor (respondent/workman) punching the tickets for 13 passengers and 6 passengers were found without ticket, though fare was collected from all the 19 passengers. The charges were substantiated by documentary evidence as well as statement deposed by the witnesses including one Shri S.C. Khandel. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry as per the rules, the respondent/workman was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments vide order dated 8th May, 1978.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner -Corporation reiterating the contents of the writ application, submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in gross error of law and facts while interfering with the penalty imposed after conducting the departmental inquiry as per prescribed procedure. The learned counsel referring to the contents of the charge -sheet dated 12th December, 1977; copy of the Bus Checking Report (for short 'the B.C.R.') dated 8th November, 1977 and the statement of Shri S.C. Khandel, further contended that from the note appended by the Inspection Team, it is evident that the respondent/workman (Conductor) was found punching the tickets of 13 passengers during the course of checking and 6 passengers were found without ticket though fare had been collected from all the 19 passengers and this fact was further corroborated and substantiated by the statement of Shri S.C. Khandel. The learned counsel for the petitioner -Corporation then argued that the respondent/workman was obliged to issue the tickets before the Bus started for journey and thus, there was no justification for the respondent/workman for not issuing the tickets, even after having collected the fare from all the 19 passengers, much before the inspection was conducted by the Inspection Team. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/workman supporting the impugned award dated 2nd July, 1997, urged that 13 passengers could not have been treated without ticket by the Inquiry Officer as the respondent/workman was in the process of punching the tickets already issued. Rest of the 6 passengers, who were girl students, insisted for student concession, which was declined by the respondent/workman, which led to a quarrel and it was under those circumstances the Inspection Team arrived, before tickets could be issued to these 6 girl students on the Bus. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that taking into consideration the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence in defence, the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978, has been rightly interfered with as the same could not be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned award calls for no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.;