1 SBCWP NO.86/1996, Koja Ram Vs. Regional Mechanical Eng. RSRTC, Jodhpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: O R D E R :: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.86/1996 Koja Ram Vs. Regional Mechanical Engineer, RSRTC Jodhpur 12/09/2008 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. K.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondent RSRTC. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.1995 passed by the Labour court holding that removal from service of the petitioner by the respondent-RSRTC was valid as he was removed on the proved misconduct of driving the Bus of RSRTC in a rash and negligent manner and causing damage to the property of RSRTC and also causing injuries to the passengers of the said Bus. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Shivaji, AIR 2007 SC 322 and in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 450, submitted that the penalty by way of removal was shockingly disproportionate looking to the charge and misconduct of the petitioner, and therefore the learned Tribunal has erred in upholding the 2 SBCWP NO.86/1996, Koja Ram Vs. Regional Mechanical Eng. RSRTC, Jodhpur penalty of removal by the impugned judgment dated 30.9.1995. 4. On the side opposite, Mr. P.K. Lohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RSRTC relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 324 and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of RSRTC Vs. Habib Khan & Ors., 1993 (2) WLC 202 submitted that the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of relevant evidence has arrived at the finding of fact and the proved misconduct of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner was a finding of fact which did not deserve to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 5. The said driver of the Bus caused the accident in question on 4.8.1981 while he was driving Bus from Nagaur to Jaipur and on account of said rash and negligent driving, he collided with a truck coming from the opposite side and in the process, not only caused damage to the Bus of RSRTC, namely Bus No.RRB 6704 but also caused injuries to some of the passengers of the said vehicle including himself. The Tribunal inter alia examined two eye witnesses, one of them was Dhanna Ram, the Conductor of the said Bus and another one was Banwari lal, who was also travelling in the same Bus and was also the employee of the respondent 3 SBCWP NO.86/1996, Koja Ram Vs. Regional Mechanical Eng. RSRTC, Jodhpur Corporation. 6. A perusal of the cross examination of these two witnesses Annex-P/4 & P/5 on record, prima facie indicates that the petitioner was guilty of driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He tried to take the bus through a place between two trucks which were standing on the road side and in a hurry to overtake the standing truck, he collided with the truck coming from the other side and thus, caused the said accident. Dhanna Ram, the Conductor in his cross examination has stated that the said driver did not utter anything about failure of brakes or steering at that time and he was sitting near him on the Bonat of the said Bus. Thus, defence taken by the petitioner driver that it was on account of mechanical failure was not found justified either in the departmental enquiry or by the Industrial Tribunal. The statements of one Banwari lal given in favour of the petitioner were not believed by the Industrial Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record and judgments cited at Bar, this Court is satisfied that the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the present case, do not require any interference. Even though, doctrine of proportionality propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 4 SBCWP NO.86/1996, Koja Ram Vs. Regional Mechanical Eng. RSRTC, Jodhpur Vs. Shivaji (Supra) were to be invoked, this Court does not find it that the punishment in question is shockingly disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, the record discloses that at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 1996, the petitioner was 44 years of age as per the affidavits filed along with the writ petition and by now, he would have either achieved the age of superannuation or nearing that. That fact also weighs this Court in not interfering with the punishment by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. The writ petition is thus found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [DR.VINEET KOTHARI],J. Praveen