CWP 12283/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12283/2009 Moti Singh Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors DATE OF ORDER : 20/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Virendra Dave, for petitioner *** Instant petition is directed against the award dated 29th March, 2009 whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been rejected by the learned Labour-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer. The petitioner, while serving as a Vehicle Driver on daily wages basis, was served with as many as 17 charge sheets out of which 11 are pending and in 6 charge sheets, monetary penalty was inflicted upon him. Apart from it, the petitioner was served with charge sheet vide memorandum No. 1072 dt. 10/10/2000 in regard to three incidents on which the vehicle met with accident due to which either the passengers or those, who were passing on the way, died because of his negligence. The alleged incidents took place on 15/04/1994, 02/09/1994 and 16/01/1998. After the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, a regular enquiry was held in which the enquiry officer found the charges proved against him. The disciplinary authority agreed CWP 12283/09 [2] with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and while holding the petitioner guilty punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 11/02/2004. A reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The learned Labour-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, after appreciating the material on record, rejected the claim of the petitioner-workman vide its award dated 29th March, 2008. Counsel for petitioner-workman urged before the Tribunal, which have been noticed by the learned Tribunal in its impugned award, are in regard to non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and further that in none of the matters any adverse finding was recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and in the criminal case registered against the petitioner, the petitioner has been acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction and apart from it, one of the contention further raised, was that it is a case of double jeopardy and once the monetary penalty was inflicted upon the petitioner, which he has deposited, the penalty inflicted of removal from service in the facts of the instant case cannot be said to be justified. Here, before this Court, counsel further submits that looking to the nature of gravity of CWP 12283/09 [3] charge levelled against the petitioner, the penalty inflicted is disproportionate and the Tribunal has failed to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 which requires interference. In the opinion of this Court, none of the submissions raised by counsel bears any merit and this Court is in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. So far as the contention advanced in respect of disproportionate penalty is concerned, suffice it to say that no such contention was advanced by the counsel firstly before the Tribunal, who could have examined its powers under Section 11-A of the Act but suffice it to say that in such like matters where three incidents took place in which the vehicle met with accident and either passenger or persons passing on the road died due to negligence of the petitioner which was found proved in the enquiry initiated against him. In such circumstances, the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner in no manner can be said to be disproportionate which may require interference of this Court in the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this Court finds no substance CWP 12283/09 [4] in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-12283-cw-2009-final.doc