The termination of a probationary employee cannot be stigmatic without an enquiry, and the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging such termination.

ORDER

1. Appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 7.7.1999 in Appeal No.271/1996 passed by Additional District Judge, No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1991 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No.842/1987 whereby while termination order of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as illegal, void and violative to principles of natural justice, he has also been declared entitle for back wages and monetary benefits from date of termination i.e. 21.07.1983.

2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor, after following regular mode of recruitment process but later on his services were terminated by defendant RSRTC vide order dated 21.07.1983 during his probation period. The termination was made on account of remarks against plaintiff that he was carrying nine passengers and 240 Kg luggage without tickets. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against termination order to Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal on 28.7.1984. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, challenging termination order dated 21.07.1983 as also order of Appellate Authority dated 28.7.1984, alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service without conducting any proper enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing on alleged charges of carrying passengers and luggage without tickets. Plaintiff prayed for declaring termination order and order of Appellate Authority as illegal and void and claimed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary benefits.

3. The RSRTC failed to file written statement despite several opportunities. However, opposed the suit of plaintiff claiming that plaintiff was a probationer and no enquiry was required to be conducted before removal of plaintiff. Other objections as to the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, were also raised.

4. The trial Court recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to prove that his termination was made illegally. He 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. In rebuttal RSRTC examined Dw.l Umesh Chand Bhatt.

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 29.6.1983, while plaintiff was on duty as Conductor, the bus was inspected and during inspection stigmatic remarks were made, on the basis of which the plaintiff's services were terminated. The plea of RSRTC that it is not a case of removal of plaintiff from service, but is a simple case of non confirmation of plaintiff due to his non satisfactory service during probation period, was not found valid. The Trial Court relied upon that the clause 13 of the Standing Orders of RSRTC, regarding removal of probationer without enquiry has been held as ultra vires by Full Bench of this High Court in case of Bhanwar Lai Vs. RSRTC [1984 RLR 619]. Thus, the trial Court observed that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was provided, 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 and order of Appellate Authority as illegal and void. The trial Court directed to give monetary benefits to plaintiff from the date of his termination.

6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of trial Court dated 5.4.1991, which was decided by Appellate Court vi