SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Rajasthan State Road Transportcorporation (in short, `the Corporation') against the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondent's writ petition on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) THE Chairman of the Corporation passed an order against the respondent awarding the punishment of reduction in rank. He has been demoted from the post of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer to the post of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer. Mr. U. N. Bhatt, the Divisional Manager, Udaipur, was transferred. He handed-over his charge to the respondent on 12th October 1983 as he was the next Senior most available officer at Udaipur. He officiated only for 12 days and, there-after, another officer, Mr. T. A. Zaidi, took the charge from him as Divisional Manager. During his officiating period, he was only to took after routine work of the Divisional Manager in addition to his own duties as Divisional Mechanical Engineer. Out of the total 12 days of his officiating on that post, five days were holidays and,in all, he got 7 working days. During this period of seven days, he called for the enquiry files of five Conductors, who were under suspension on grave charges of allowing ticketless passengers to travel on several occasions. The enquiries were pending against them since only about 2 months and they had not filed their replies to the charge-sheets. They were filed in hurry soon after he took over officiatingpost on 12. 10. 83. They were filed on 17. 10. 83, 18. 10. 83, 20. 10. 83 and 21. 10. 83. He decided the cases of five conductors, i. e. , Ramnarain, Rishabh Lal, Ramlal Yadav, Ramchandra Trivedi and Banshilal against whom charges of grave misconduct were pending. He neither appointed any Enquiry Officer, nor presenting officer, nor held any enquiry against them, though the entire record has beenseen by him. From the record, it was known to him that these were the persons who have been punished for committing same type of misconducts on several earlier occasions. Without following the procedure of law, he decided all the cases in hot haste by imposing minor penalties. He did not even follow the Circular dated 14th of November, 1980, which made it obligatory on the party of the Disciplinaryauthority to have looked into the previous record of the delinquent employees, to have appointed the Enquiry Officer and presenting officer for conducting the enquiry. Even Order 35 of the Standing Orders was not followed. Ramnarain (Conductor) He was charge-sheeted on 26th September, 1983 and was required to filehis reply within seven days. However, he filed his reply on 20th October, 1983, during the short span of time when the respondent was looking after the work of the Divisional Manager, Udaipur. His case was decided on 20th October, 1983, i. e. , only a day before a permanent incument Mr. Zaidi was to join his duties and would have relieved the respondent.
(3.) RAMNARAIN was punished on several occasions when he was a Conductor at Banswara Depot. He was punished for the misconducts committed by him on 31st of August, 1979, 14th of September, 1979, 28th of September, 1979, 25th of September, 1981, 27th of April, 1981, 5th of October, 1981, 26th of May, 1982 and 15th of September, 1983. These misconducts mainly related of carrying passengerswithout tickets. In this case, respondent passed the following order Varnacular Text 22-10-83 Rishabh Lal (Conductor) He was earlier punished for the misconducts which he committed on 17th of August, 1980, 9th of October, 1980, 12th of November 1980, 28th of November, 1981, 22nd of September, 1982 and 30th of July, 1983 for carrying passengers in the bus without tickets and, in his case, he passed the following order : "discussed and seen the entire file alongwith reply of conductor. Reply is quite satisfactory. No Detailed enquiry is needed for the same. Looking to the conductor's past history and scarcity of conductors following orders be issued. 1. He may be issued S. R. warning for not repeating such in future. 2. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corporation head. 3. One A. G. I be stopped temporarily. He may be sent to D. P. R. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S. P. Mangal) Divisional Manager, 19. 10. 83. '' Banshilal (Conductor) He was also earlier punished for the misconducts which he committed on 2nd April, 1979, 30 th of August, 1979, 19th of October, 1979, 3rd of August, 1980,10th of September, 1980, 12th of July, 1980, 30th of September, 1980, 29th of November, 1981, 16th of January, 1983 and 12th of August, 1983. The misconducts related to carrying the passengers without tickets and, in his case, the following order was passed : ``he has submitted the reply of previous charge sheet also. In which he was placed under suspension. Later on, he was reinstated pending enquiry even before the submission of reply. That means the charge was not so serious and it was realised by concerned Div. Manager in personal hearings. The Second Charge is also not comparable with that of previous one. Looking to all these circumstances, it will not be in the interest of Organisation to conduct detail enquiry. It will be unnecessary loss to the Organisation as detailed enquiry also put heavy cost to the Organisation. Under the circumstances, looking to the past history he has violated the rules laid down by Corporation, following orders be issued:- 1. S. R. warning be issued for not repeating the things in future. 2. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S. P. Mangal)21. 10. 83. '' Rameshwar Lal S/o Shanker Lal (Conductor) ;