The main legal point established in the judgment is the stigmatic nature of the termination, the requirement of conducting an enquiry, and the entitlement of the plaintiff for backwages from the date of termination.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - The appellant- defendant-RSRTC (hereafter 'the RSRTC) has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in first appeal No. 326/1996 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1990 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur city, Jaipur in civil suit No. 150/1987 whereby and whereunder suit has been decreed, the termination order dated 26-3-1985 was quashed and set aside and plaintiff has been declared entitled for all monetary benefits from the date of termination.

2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent-plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on daily wages on 24-6-1983 and subsequently vide order dated 22-10-1984 he was appointed on probation. He was removed from service vide order No. 302 dated 26-3-1985 because on 5-3-1985 while he was on duty of Conductor on the route of Balotra to Barmer his vehicle was checked and despite there being no passenger without ticket remark of 15 passengers without ticket was made. However, without conducting any enquiry regarding the aforesaid remark removed the plaintiff from service vide impugned order. The termination was made on account of remarks against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, challenging termination order dated 26-3-1985, alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service without conducting any enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing on alleged charges. Plaintiff prayed for declaring termination order as illegal and void and claimed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary benefits.

3. The RSRTC filed written statement contending that plaintiff was on probation and he was removed from service due to unsatisfactory service, without casting any stigma, but only for simpliciter reason that RSRTC was not in need of service of plaintiff, as such no enquiry was required to be conducted before removal of plaintiff. Other objections as to valuation of the suit and that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, were also raised.

4. The trial Court settled issues and recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced document. Plaintiff stated that his termination is stigmatic and was passed without conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, termination is ex facie illegal and in violation to principles of natural justice. No evidence was adduced in rebuttal by RSRTC.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not simpliciter, but because of stigmatic remark. It was found that on 5-3-1985 plaintiff was on duty as Conductor in bus plying from Balotra to Barmer which was inspected, and during inspection it was found that 11 passengers were travelling in bus without ticket. The inspecting team made a remark that plaintiff is guilty and negligent in his duties. Thus, the trial Court observed that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was given, no principle of natural justice was followed, thus, impugned termination order is illegal and void. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the termination order as illegal and void. The trial Court directed to give all monetary benefits to plaintiff from the date of termination.

6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of trial Court, which was decided by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28-10-1999 and upheld the judgment and decree.

7. At the outset, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on instructions of his client, submits that since no stay order was passed in favour of the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-plaintiff was re