Bhanwar Lal vs R.S.R.T.C. and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—The instant writ application projects a challenge to the order of termination dated 16th December, 1978, terminating the services of the petitioner for he was found carrying 11 passengers without tickets; on the basis of his conviction recorded by the criminal court for offence under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Transport Service (Prevention of Ticket Less Travel), Act 1975 (hereinafter referred as to ''Act of 1975'', for short). The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):-

"i) that termination letter dt.16.12.1978 (Annex-6) may kindly be quashed and respondents be directed that petitioner be taken in re-service since 14.12.78 with all consequential benefits for which entitled in service.

ii) that record of service of petitioner may also be called.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

Briefly, the indispensable material facts essential for the appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. The petitioner, while working as ''Conductor'' at Kota Depot of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, respondent ''the Corporation''), was found guilty of carrying 11 passengers without tickets on the bus with Registration No. 6025 on 14th December, 1978, at 3.45 p.m. A charge-sheet was prepared and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate (Transport). The petitioner confessed the charge for he did not issue tickets to 11 passengers, having accepted the fare. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner on 14th December, 1978, for offence under Section 8 of the Act, 1975. As a consequence of his conviction, the respondent-Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 16th December, 1978. The order of conviction who was subjected to appeal successfully. The petitioner''s appeal was allowed vide order dated 26th August, 1996, setting aside the order of conviction dated 14th December, 1978.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application emphasised that the sole basis of termination of the services of the petitioner was the conviction as recorded on 14th December, 1978, which was successfully assailed in appeal. The appeal was allowed on 26th August, 1996, acquitting the petitioner. Thereafter, he submitted an application on 4th September, 1997, for his reinstatement followed by several reminders, but did not evoke any response.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Corporation has filed its counter affidavit raising preliminary objection for an inordinate, undue and unexplained delay and laches in assailing the order of termination dated 16th December, 1978; by institution of the present writ proceedings in the year 1998. The writ application was dismissed on this count. However, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, was subjected to intra-court appeal successfully.

As a result of the order passed on the intra court appeal, the order of learned Single Judge, declining to entertain the writ application for delay and laches, was set aside. The matter has been remanded back for hearing afresh on merits. The respondent-Corporation in its counter affidavit has pleaded that the petitioner committed breach of duty as he was found carrying 11 passengers without tickets on the vehicle after having accepted the fare.

The petitioner was proceeded with for offence under Section 8 of the Act of 1975, (Rajasthan State Road Transport Service), and was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Transport), imposing a penalty of rupees 150/-, taking a lenient view whereas the petitioner was liable to be punished with either description which may extend to imprisonment for one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both, in addition to any disciplinary action for such a misconduct. It is further submitted that Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, also provides imposition of such a penalty. Further, as a temporary worker, the petitioner could be terminated without any notice or pay in due thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the opinion in the case of Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corp. Ltd. Vs. N. Balakrishnan, (2007) 114 FLR 613 : (2007) 7 JT 510 : (2007) 2 LLJ 1046 : (2007) 7 SCALE 758 : (2007) 9 SCC 755 : (2007) 6 SCR 873 .

Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, appearing on behalf of respondent-Corporation, repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued that Clause 12 of the Standing Orders of 1965, specifically contemplates for termination of employment of a temporary worker on probation whether monthly rated, weekly rated or piece rated, and shall not be entitled to any notice or pay in due thereof, if his services are terminated. Further, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate (Transport), for offence under Section 8 of the Act of 1975, for carrying passengers without tickets and therefore, the action of the respondent-Corporation in terminating the employment of the petitioner cannot be faulted.

The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the petitioner keeping in view delay for the incident dates back to the year 1978 and the matter was decided by the Appellate Court on 26th August, 1996; and thus, there was no "honourable acquittal". The petitioner was extended the benefit of doubt on technical grounds, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on this count as well.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shri Bihari Lal Sidhana, AIR 1997 SC 3659 : (1997) 4 JT 541 : (1997) 3 SCALE 459 : (1997) 4 SCC 385 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1076 : (1997) 3 SCR 364 : (1997) AIRSCW 1912 : (1997) 3 Supreme 679 .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and their assistance perused the materials available on record.

Indisputably, the petitioner was charged for carrying passengers without tickets on 14th December, 1978. In view of his confession he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate (Transport); inflicting a penalty of rupees 150/- (one hundred fifty). On the basis of the recorded conviction, the employment of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 16th December, 1978. The order of conviction was successfully assailed in appeal whereby the petitioner was acquitted on 26th August, 1996.

The preliminary objection as pleaded needs no address as the issue has already been considered and decided on 26th August, 1996, in the intra-court appeal.

From the singular facts, attending circumstances and materials available on record, it is evident that the sole basis for termination of the employment of the petitioner was his conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Transport), on 14th December, 1978; for carrying 11 passengers without tickets and was inflicted with the penalty of financial rupees 150/- (one hundred fifty). The conviction as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Transport), was quashed and set aside by the Appellate Court on 26th August, 1996.

Admittedly, the respondent-Corporation did not conduct any departmental enquiry and the sole basis for the termination of the services of the petitioner was the conviction as aforesaid, which has been set aside by the Appellate Court.

Consequently, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. By catena of judgments, by now, it is well settled that principle of natural justice are to be read into the relevant provisions, even if there is no provision to that effect, and therefore, the contentions raised by the counsel for respondent-Corporation on the basis of the provision incorporated to that effect in the under Clause 13(rr) of the Standing Orders, 1965, are rejected.

In the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, the Hon''ble Supreme Court referring to the opinion in an earlier case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 : (2001) 88 FLR 912 : (2001) 2 JT 72 : (2001) 1 LLJ 725 : (2001) 1 SCALE 373 : (2001) 2 SCC 574 : (2001) SCC(L&S) 469 : (2001) 1 SCR 487 : (2001) AIRSCW 593 : (2001) 1 Supreme 342 , observed that in cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service. There cannot be two views on the principle propounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land.

In the instant case at hand, the sole basis for the termination of the employment of the petitioner was his conviction, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Transport), for carrying 11 passengers without ticket. The conviction was set aside by the Appellate Court vide order dated 26th August, 1996, and therefore, the opinion referred and relied upon has no application to the facts of the case at hand.

In the case of Union of India and Anr (supra), the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land held that acquittal in criminal case does not entitle the delinquent to automatic reinstatement because disciplinary action can be taken even after acquittal.

In the case aforesaid in the preceding paragraph, the petitioner was not visited with adverse consequences therein. There was no stigma attached by virtue of termination order as well as no penalty was inflicted on the petitioner despite the enquiries. It was in back drop of those singular facts, the Hon''ble Supreme Court made the observation.

In the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.; 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 611, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed thus:-

From a bare perusal of the judgment, it is amply clear that the petitioner has been acquitted honorably by this Court. One more fact, which is throwing light on the issue involved in the matter, is that the prosecution against the petitioner was launched at the behest of the employer inasmuch as precisely the offence has direct proximity with the service and the charge attributed is within the four corners of Prevention of Corruption Act. The sole ground for his removal from service is the conviction by a competent court. Admittedly, for the alleged offence of the petitioner, no disciplinary inquiry was initiated him inasmuch as neither any charge-sheet was given to him, nor any disciplinary action was taken against him.

The observations, as extracted hereinabove, were made in view of the singular facts of that case, wherein the petitioner was ''honourably acquitted'' whereas in the instant case at hand, the appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Appellate Court taking note of the pendency of the proceedings and it was not considered proper to remanded the matter back having regard to the period elapse from the date of incident i.e. 1978 to 1999.

Be that as it may, in the instant case at hand, since the very basis for termination of the services of the petitioner is no more in existence in view of acquittal recorded by the Appellate Court on 26th August, 1996; in my opinion, he would be entitled to consequential benefits notionally and without any back wages.

In the result, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

It would be open for the respondent-Corporation to initiate departmental enquiry for the charge on which is conviction was recorded, if so advised.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to comply with the order within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any back wages and the benefits would be admissible only on notional basis.

No costs.