Non­Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.9957  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.26347 of 2018)

(D.No.23039 of 2018)  

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State  Road Transport Corporation, Alwar ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Vinod Kumar Sharma                …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the  High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur

in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1960 of 2017

1

whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed

by the appellant herein and thus confirmed the

order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Single Judge

of the  said  High Court in  S.B.  Civil  Writ  Petition

No.14368 of  2011,  which  arose  out  of the  award

dated 25.07.2011 passed by the Industrial

Tribunal­cum­Magistrate Court, Alwar.

3. Few facts need mention for the disposal of the

appeal hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is the employer­ Rajasthan State

Road Transport Corporation. The respondent is the

employee working at all relevant time with the

appellant on the post of Conductor.

5. The dispute relates to dismissal of the

respondent from the services on the ground of

misconduct committed by him while on duty. The

dismissal  of the respondent is  based on domestic

inquiry.

6. The dispute in relation to the respondent's

dismissal was dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal

2

at the instance of the respondent­employee with a

view to decide its legality and correctness.  

7. It was then carried to the High Court in two

rounds earlier which eventually led to passing of the

impugned order by the Division Bench in an appeal

filed by the appellant  herein and now finally  it is

before this  Court  at the  instance  of the employer

(Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation)

against the  dismissal  of their  appeal  by  the  High

Court.

8. We heard the learned counsel  for the parties

and perused the impugned order of the  Division

Bench.  

9. We are constrained to observe that on reading

the impugned order, it is difficult to discern much

less appreciate the factual and legal controversy in

its  proper  perspective.  The reasons are not far to

seek.

10. The  impugned order  has  neither  set  out the

facts properly nor the findings of the Tribunal

3

clearly  and  Single  Judge  and  nor  dealt  with  any

submissions  urged by both the counsel and  nor

given its reasoning keeping in view the law laid

down by this Court on the issues arising in the case

to justify the  dismissal  of the  appeal filed by the

employer (appellant herein).  

11. In substance, we are not able to appreciate the

slip short narration of the facts and

unsubstantiated reasoning in support of the

conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench.

12. For these reasons,  we  do  not  wish to  probe

into the factual and legal issues arising in the case

and instead allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order and remand the case to the

Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the

appeal afresh on merits keeping in view the

aforementioned observations made by us.  

13. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly

allowed.  Impugned order  is  set  aside.  The case  is

remanded to the  Division  Bench for  deciding the

4

intra Court appeal afresh on merits in accordance

with law. Since we form an opinion to remand the

case to the Division Bench, we refrain from going

into the merits of the case and, therefore, the High

Court will decide the appeal uninfluenced by any of

our observations.

14. We request the High Court to decide the appeal

as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6

months.  

               ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                     …...……..................................J.

             [S.ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi; September 25, 2018  

5