Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

1. The petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 11th May, 2015, terminating his services; has instituted the present writ application, praying for the following reliefs.

"(i) The impugned order dated 08.10.2014 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 11.5.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service on the post of conductor with all consequential benefits;

(ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner was accorded appointment under the compassionate appointment quota vide order dated 19th December, 2013, on a fixed salary of Rs. 7,900/- per month. The appointment contemplated probation period of two years followed by confirmation after successful completion. On 22rd April, 2015, the local M.L.A. - Shri Kanwar Lal Meena, inspected the vehicle No. 0544 of the respondent-Corporation, while it was being plied on Jhalawar-Kota-Mahnohar thana - Binaganj-Kota route. In the inspection 20 passengers were found without ticket from whom the fare was collected but were not furnished with the ticket. The M.L.A., who has been impleaded as respondent No. 4, to the writ proceedings, addressed a letter to the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, enclosing a copy of the log sheet to substantiate the fact that the petitioner was carrying 20 passengers without ticket, having charged fare from them. On 22nd April, 2015, the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of the contemplation of an enquiry as would be reflected from Annexure-3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application vehemently argued that despite decision taken by the respondent-Corporation to conduct an enquiry while placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation thereof, but no enquiry was ever conducted. Therefore, termination of petitioner’s services vide impugned order dated 11th May, 2015; is illegal, arbitrary and stigmatic on the face of it.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the M.L.A. had no authority to inspect the bus and charge the petitioner of the alleged misconduct. That apart, despite service of notice of the writ application on the M.L.A., who has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ proceedings, no response has been filed in denial thereof.

5. Learned counsel further urged that a bare perusal of the reply to the writ application, would reveal that the facts detailed out have been admitted, and therefore, the termination of the petitioner’s service for the alleged misconduct as reported by the M.L.A. is, illegal, invalid and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 (3) SCC 239, Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Center For Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 60, State Bank of India & Ors. v. Palak Modi & Anr., 2013 (3) SCC 607, Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2007 (10) SCC 71, and a batch of writ applications adjudicated upon by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9242/2014 (Hanuwant Singh v. RSRTC & Ors.), vide order dated 13th August, 2015, affirmed by the Division Bench in the intra-court appeal No. 968/2015 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. v. Hanuwant Singh), decided on 13th January, 2016.

6. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Corporation has filed its counter-affidavit while supporting its action in terminating the employment of the petitione