2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.
Two chargesheets dated 11.3.1988 were served upon him.
After companysidering the report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of removal from the service.
The respondent filed a Civil Suit on 2.9.1988 challenging the order of removal alleging that he was number supplied with the documents referred to in the chargesheets, number was given the enquiry report number other documents.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that The respondent while working as a trainee companyductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enquiry was initiated against him.
Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Civil Regular Appeal No.
The stand taken by the appellants that the Suit itself was number maintainable, as the only remedy available to the respondent was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1947 has number been properly examined by the companyrts below.
The respondent plaintiff failed to prove any of the allegations made in the plaint, therefore, the companyrts below have erred in holding that the enquiry stood vitiated due to violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
However, on companyclusion of the trial, the Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994.
Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and a regular enquiry ensued.
Hence, this appeal.
119 of 2002, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003.
The enquiry officer after companyclusion of the enquiry submitted the report holding that charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets stood proved against him.
More so, the pleadings in the plaint were vague.
Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that numbere of the companyrts below have examined the case in companyrect perspective.
More so, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
449 of 2003, which also stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when he was on duty on route Kota Neemuch, his bus was checked and he was found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets of lesser amount though, he had companylected the full fare from them.
The Corporation challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing Regular Second Appeal No.
The Suit was companytested by the appellants denying all the averments made therein.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as Corporation against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.
The respondent submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were number found satisfactory.
119 of 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Jr. Div.
449 of 2003 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No.
1346 of 1988.
In the first chargesheet, it was alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty enroute Kota Rajpura, when his bus was checked, it was found that 10 passengers were traveling without tickets, though he had companylected the fare from each of them.
