Termination of service without inquiry violates principles of natural justice, especially when allegations of misconduct are involved.

Order :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The present writ petition impugns the order dated 31.01.2025, which has been passed by the respondent No.4- Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner’s service has been brought to an end citing her services have been unsatisfactory.

2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that pursuant to the sanction letter dated 05.04.2022, an advertisement came to be issued. And after undergoing due selection process, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II on Urgent Temporary Basis (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UTB’).

3. As per the facts pleaded, a complaint was filed by one Pushpendra Rao, alleging that some staff member of the respondents had taken a sum of Rs.2,200/- as a bribe. On further probe, it was alleged that it was the petitioner who had taken the bribe.

4. It has been contended by the petitioner that owing to undue pressure or duress, she had to write a letter dated 10.01.2025 admitting the acceptance of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant.

5. According to the petitioner, when she came to learn that the respondents are going to terminate her services, she made a representation on 31.01.2025 (Annexure-8) and submitted that she had tendered her apology on the advice or persuasion of the higher officers so as to give an end to the dispute and prayed that she be exonerated, as assured.

6. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel argued that the respondent No.4 has arbitrarily terminated her services vide order dated 31.01.2025, recording a finding that the petitioner had taken bribe of Rs.2000/-.

7. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner’s appointment as UTB is governed by the Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1965) and therefore, unless an inquiry is conducted, services of petitioner cannot be brought to an end.

8. While denying the allegation of having accepted the bribe, learned counsel argued that the letter dated 10.01.2025 was essentially a letter of apology in order bring an end to the dispute and such letter cannot be taken to be acceptance of guilt.

9. Learned counsel argued that true it is that condition No.9 of the appointment order dated 06.08.2022 provides that if the service of UTB employee is not found satisfactory, he/she shall be forthwith terminated but the facts of the case in hand shows that it was not a case of unsatisfactory services but was a case of misconduct on the allegation of having accepted bribe.

10. Learned counsel also argued that the order impugned being stigmatic is liable to be quashed.

11. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarachand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.70/2019 ).

12. Learned counsel further submitted that though the complainant himself had not only written on the Sampark Portal and but has written another letter dated 04.02.2025 to the effect that said complaint was filed under a misconception, yet the respondents have not considered the same.

13. Mr. NS Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is an employee on Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB) and nature of her engagement/ employement is entirely of different nature. He submitted that since the petitioner is not on regular roll of the respondents, disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 1958) cannot be undertaken. He added that services of an employee engaged on UTB can be brought to an end as provided under condition No.9 of the appointment order if his/her services is not satisfcatory.

14. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the face of the letter dated 10.01.2025, which the petitioner had written, no opportunity of hearing was required, while maintai