Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Kaluram - Petitioner
Vs.
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, through the Chairman & Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 10719/2015
Decided On : 08-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Avinash Acharya.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Sharma
Integrity is a prerequisite for confirmation of probationary employment, and termination can occur even with pending inquiries if integrity is questionable.
Headnote:
(A) Standing Orders of 1965 - Rule 8(iii) - Termination of services - The petitioner, a Conductor, was terminated during probation for carrying passengers without tickets on five occasions, without completing pending departmental inquiries - The court held that integrity is a prerequisite for confirmation and mere pendency of inquiries does not prevent termination. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Employment Law - Probationary Employment - The court emphasized that a probationer must demonstrate unquestionable integrity for confirmation, and the employer has the discretion to terminate based on integrity concerns. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 21.02.2014, with a two-year probation period. He was found carrying passengers without tickets on five occasions, leading to his termination on 02.07.2015 without a hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s integrity was questionable due to repeated violations, justifying the termination under Rule 8(iii) of the Standing Orders.
Issues: The main issues were whether the termination was justified without completing pending inquiries and the interpretation of integrity in the context of probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that integrity is essential for confirmation and that the employer can terminate a probationer if integrity is in doubt, regardless of pending inquiries.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2015 (Annex.4) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
3. Briefly noted facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014 on a fixed monthly remuneration. The services of the petitioner were on a probation period of two years. During his probation period, the petitioner was caught carrying the passengers without ticket consecutively on five occasions. The Bus Checking Reports were prepared on all the five occasions and the matter was referred to the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 22.06.2015, however, while proceeding under notices issued, departmental inquiries were pending consideration against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 02.07.2015 by not extending his probation period. Hence, aggrieved against his termination order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order dated 02.07.2015 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in four cases, departmental inquiries were pending and instead of completing those disciplinary proceedings, a shortcut route by way of passing the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 has been adopted by the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated while not confirming his services after completion of his probation period. Learned counsel submits that since the foundation for passing the order dated 02.07.2015 is pendency of four inquiries, therefore, without holding and completing the departmental inquiry, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated by passing the order dated 02.07.2015. He further submits that the order impugned has been passed imposing penalty of termination without holding an inquiry, although the same were pending against the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 02.07.2015 may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014 and the petitioner was on a probation period of two years. He submits that during his probation period, the petitioner was caught carrying the passengers without tickets on five occasions, therefore, the integrity of the petitioner was questionable. He very fairly submits that although notices were issued to the petitioner on four occasions on account of carrying the passengers without tickets, however, during the pendency of the inquiry, the respondents thought it proper to terminate the services of the petitioner while exercising the powers conferred under Rule 8 (iii) of theStanding Orders of 1965 . He submits that Rule 8 (iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 confers powers to the Corporation not to confirm the services of a probationer trainee, if the authorities are satisfied that the integrity of a person is questionable. Therefore, the Corporation has considered the entire service record of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that integrity of the petitioner is not unquestionable and therefore, he was not found fit for confirmation and the Corporation has terminated his services. He, therefore, prays that the order passed by the Corporation on 02.07.2015 is just and proper and therefore, the same needs no interference by this court.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. The admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014. The services of the petitioner were on
