MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Ghan Shyam Sharma has approached this Court in the present writ petition challenging the charge -sheet served upon him by the respondents - R.S.R.T.C. for holding de -novo enquiry in relation to an incident of 1981 and has prayed for quashment of the same with directions to the respondents to release his annual grade increments, make his fixation in revised pay scale, grant him selection scale from the date of his initial appointment and make payment of arrears thereof with interest @24%.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondents vide order dated 4/7/1980. A charge -sheet was served upon him on 13/11/1981 by the then Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Jaipur to the effect that petitioner, while on duty in 1981 on Sawaimadhopur -Jaipur -via -Lalsote route, carried 14 passengers in the bus of the R.S.R.T.C. without ticket. After enquiry, petitioner was terminated from service by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 26/4/1983. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 20/12/1988. The court declared the dismissal order of petitioner dated 26/4/1983 as null and void and held him entitled to get all consequential benefits. The respondents implemented the judgment and decree and issued an order dated 10/1/1989 reinstating the petitioner in service and decided to file appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Condition No. 2 of the said reinstatement order provided that in the case of reinstated Conductors, there would be no bar for conducting de -novo enquiry. Petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 17/1/1989 and he joined his duties on 25/1/1989. It is thereafter that respondents again served charge -sheet upon the petitioner for the selfsame charges on the basis of the same incident of 7/11/1981 on 21/9/1998. Respondent No. 4 - Pukh Raj Saleja was appointed as enquiry officer vide order dated 21/9/1998. Petitioner made certain representations and ultimately served a notice upon the respondents requiring them to release benefits of his annual grade increments, his pay fixation in revised pay scale, benefit of selection scale and for payment of consequential benefits to him. Petitioner then served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents on 9/12/2000 and when nothing was done thereon, he filed present writ petition in the year 2001.
(3.) SHRI Babu Lal Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that fresh charge -sheet could not be issued to the petitioner on 21/9/1998 when already a charge -sheet was issued to him for these very charges in 1981 and removal order passed pursuant thereto was annulled by the order of civil court. Initially, his services were terminated and thereafter when he filed civil suit, trial court vide its judgment and decree aforesaid set -aside the order terminating his services. It was argued that issuance of fresh charge -sheet would therefore be barred by law and the order of termination having been set -aside, respondents are estopped from issuing fresh charge -sheet on the self -same charges. The civil court while deciding the suit did not grant any liberty to the respondents permitting them to hold re -enquiry or de -novo enquiry. Moreover, charges related to incident of the year 1981 whereas charge - sheet has been issued belatedly on 21/9/1998. The writ petition, he prayed, may therefore be allowed on this count alone. It was argued that petitioner has already suffered mental agony because of protracted continuation of departmental enquiry and subsequent proceedings. He was neither paid the minimum of pay scale, nor revised pay scale nor has he been paid selection scale. Shri B.L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid arguments placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Khodubha Harsing Gohal v. Union of India and Ors. SLR 1980(3) 564, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors. : (2006)IILLJ800SC , State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan : [1998]2SCR693 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Anr. 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 and judgment of this Court in Shikhar Chand Sethi v. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (E), Western Railway, Kota Division, Kota and Ors. .;