CW 11723/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11723/09 RSRTC Versus Smt. Suhagvati & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 05/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vinod Sharma for Mr. Ashok Bansal, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by statutory Corporation [RSRTC] assailing order of learned Industrial Tribunal whereby application filed U/s.33(2)(b) of the Act was rejected on 10th October, 2007 [Ann.4]. It appears from the record that workman Badan Singh died pending application filed by the Corporation u/s.33(2)(b) and his legal representatives were brought on record. The deceased while working as Booking Clerk certain allegations were levelled against him vide charge sheet dt.14th October, 1993. In all, there were four charges and the inquiry officer has not found charges nos.1 & 2 proved against delinquent. However, charge nos.3 & 4 have been found proved, but the disciplinary authority while being disagreed with the finding of inquiry CW 11723/09 [2] officer held him guilty of all the four charges and punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order dt.26th November, 1997. It appears that because of pending industrial dispute application was submitted for seeking permission u/s.33(2)(b) and obviously no note of disagreement was served upon the delinquent, as such application was submitted seeking permission to prove those charges before the Industrial Tribunal, but by that time delinquent died and his legal representative were brought on record and in such change circumstances, the Tribunal has not considered proper to now grant permission and examined the record of inquiry and finally recorded a finding that inquiry was unfair – as a consequence whereof, application filed by petitioner was rejected under the order impugned dt.10th October, 2007 [Ann.4]. Once the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved against delinquent, the disciplinary authority was under an obligation to service a notice along with the note of disagreement upon the delinquent before recording a finding of guilt against him which indisputably was not complied with by the petitioner which was in violation of principles of natural justice. CW 11723/09 [3] It is true that charges could have been proved before the Tribunal, but the learned Tribunal observed that since the delinquent is no more, no purpose is going to be served in now granting such permission. Even from the material, it does not appear that there is any manifest error being committed by Tribunal under order impugned and taking note of the fact that delinquent died during pendency of the proceedings of the Tribunal substantial justice has been done with the members of deceased family. Apart from it, instant petition has been filed after almost two years of the order impugned and no satisfactory explanation has come forward and what has been averred in Para 9 of the petition is also very vague. Taking note of totality of the matter, this court does not find any substance to interfere in the instant petition. Writ petition is without merit and stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA11723CW09 5-10.doc