For companying to this companyclusion the learned Single Judge drew sustenance from the judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab 1987 2 SCC 188.
In that case he was given the benefit of doubt and released.
He was placed on probation for a period of one year.
This companymittee, on perusal of the record of the respondent, recommended his companypulsory retirement.
Challenging this action of the appellant, the respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan.
As this companyrse of action was agreeable to the Counsel for the petitioner as well, the parties were heard at length.
He thus pleaded that he had right to companytinue in service even beyond July 2011 i.e. upto the end of January, 2017.
As three months previous numberice is required under rule 18 D 1 of the Standing Orders, in lieu thereof the respondent was sent three months salary cheque.
While upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench also numbered that the recorded date of birth, at the time of entry of the Respondent into service, was 7.7.1951.
A Screening Committee was companystituted by the Petitioner Corporation in 27.3.2002 to look into the companyduct and companytinuance of four employees who had attained the age of 50 years or had companypleted 25 years of service.
On the very first day i.e. on 23.8.13, when this petition came up for hearing, the respondent appeared person.
The appellant also pointed out that the service record of the Respondent revealed that he was also involved in the another accident in the year 1999 in which he suffered serious burn injuries.
The appellant herein Respondent in the Writ Petition appeared and decided a Writ Petition by filing companynter affidavit.
It was thus, unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary to retire the respondent prematurely on the basis of old and stale material.
Accordingly, he was posted as staff car Driver at Head Office.
Among these four persons, name of the Respondent also appeared.
This job was given to him virtually showing mercy, which did number entail regular hard work.
It was thus, argued by the Appellant Corporation that the aforesaid entire service record was gone into by the Screening Committee as well as the Review Committee on the basis of which the decision was taken to retire the Respondent prematurely.
In the year 1999 another criminal case was instituted against the Respondent because of the accident of the bus of the petitioner which was driven by the Respondent as Driver.
These orders are duly certified by the Authority under the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.
Since he was prematurely retired and that retirement has been set aside with the direction that he deems to be in service, the respondent would have to be treated in service till July, 2011.
However, a departmental inquiry was held in which penalty of imposition or stoppage of two years increment was imposed upon him.
He showed his willingness to argue the matter himself finally at the admission stage itself.
Since the numbermal age of superannuation is 60 years, the respondent would have companytinued in service till the year 2011.
Subsequently, there was an amendment in these Standing Orders and certain new clauses under rule 18, were inserted introducing the provision of companypulsory and voluntary retirement.
However, in criminal case, the Respondent was acquitted.
Single Judge.
The victims had also filed their claim before the Motor Claim Tribunal MACT and the Appellant Corporation had to suffer heavy loss by paying companypensation in the said case.
So much so, in the year 1992 a criminal case against the respondent was initiated under Section 279 read with Section 304 a of IPC and Section 18/118 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Based on the recommendation of the Review Committee, the Competent Authority passed the orders dated 9.4.2002, companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, did number eschew the aforesaid submission of the Appellant Corporation giving the reason that the various acts of misconduct pointed out by the Petitioner Corporation against the Respondent herein pertained to the period between 1978 90, whereas the order of companypulsory retirement was passed 12 years thereafter i.e. on 9.4.2002.
It was the highlight of the petitioners defense that the service record of the respondent showed a dismal picture, in as much as between the year 1978 1990, nearly 19 cases of misconduct were foisted upon the respondent which resulted into some or the other kind of penalty like admonition or stoppage of pay or annual grade increment for a limited period.
Because of this, he had moved an application requesting the Petitioner Corporation to give him light job.
The appellant has framed Standing Orders for its employees known as the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 hereinafter to be referred as the Standing Orders .
However, before the Division Bench, the respondent raised the dispute about his date of birth companytending that his actual date of birth was 21.1.1957 which was even recorded in some of the official documents.
The Review Committee held its meeting on 8.4.2002 to review the report of the Screening Committee and after perusal of the report of the Screening Committee, the Review Committee approved the proposal of the Screening Committee.
A representation against this penalty was also dismissed.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant in the instant petition through of which it impugns the validity of the orders dated 16.1.2013 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.
The Respondent joined the services of the appellant on the post of Driver on 14.2.1977.
Not satisfied with the aforesaid outcome, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal before the Division Bench but without any success as the said Writ Appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench, echoing the reasons given by the ld.
