Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1908
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Prakash Manda S/o Sh. Ghewar Ram Manda – Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Rsrtc, Head Officer – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14008 of 2016
Decided on : 14-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Nehra
For the Respondent: Mr. Shashank Sharma for Mr. Harish Purohit
Termination of a probationary employee on integrity grounds is deemed stigmatic and requires a formal inquiry to be lawful.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 - Clause 8(iii) & (iv) - Termination of services - Petitioner’s termination on account of carrying passengers without tickets deemed stigmatic; absence of enquiry renders termination unlawful. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Natural Justice - Termination based on integrity issues must involve enquiry; non-fulfillment of conditions does not warrant automatic termination. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was employed as a Conductor and terminated during the probation period for alleged integrity issues related to carrying passengers without tickets, without a proper enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found that termination was stigmatic and lawfully unsustainable due to lack of enquiry before the order.
Issues: The main question was whether the termination constituted a punitive action requiring an inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that termination on integrity grounds is stigmatic and necessitates an inquiry, as per established principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed; termination quashed with liberty to issue a fresh order post-enquiry.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination process violated mandatory enquiry requirement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. integrity grounds for termination necessitate proper enquiry. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 3. stigmatic termination impacts legal validity without prior investigation. (Para 10 , 12) |
Order :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2015, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
3. Briefly noted the facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent Department on 03.03.2014. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as Conductor, the allegation of carrying passengers without tickets on four occasions were noted and, therefore, a notice was served upon the petitioner on 01.05.2015. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the notice issued by the respondents on 03.05.2015. The respondents, without taking note of the reply filed by the petitioner, have terminated his services vide order dated 13.05.2015 (Annex.4) invoking the Clause 8 (iii) & (iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Standing Orders, 1965). Aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2015, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without holding an enquiry in the matter. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 13.05.2015 (Annex.4) cannot be stated to be an order of termination simplicitor as the petitioner has been terminated on account of questionable integrity. Learned counsel submits that if the services of the petitioner are terminated by a stigmatic order, then holding of necessary enquiry is sine quo non. He submits that since no enquiry before terminating services of the petitioner was held by the respondents, therefore, the order dated 13.05.2015 is not sustainable in the eye of law. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9242/2014 (Hanuwant Singh vs. RSRTC & Ors.), decided on 13.08.2015. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 13.05.2015 may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years and while working on the post of Conductor, he was found carrying passengers without tickets on four occasions and, therefore, the respondents have rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner in probation period are not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, as per Clause 8 (iii) & (iv) of the Standing Orders, 1965, the services of the petitioner are not liable to be continued/confirmed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner’s integrity was found to be doubtful/questionable while serving as Conductor in the respondent Department, therefore, the order dated 13.05.2015 terminating the services of the petitioner has rightly been passed. He, therefore, submits that no interference in the writ proceedings is warranted.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. The facts in the writ petition discloses that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent Department vide order dated 03.03.2014. The probation period of the petitioner was for two years. During the probation period, the petitioner was found carrying passengers without tickets on four occasions, therefore, a notice dated 01.05.2015 was served upon the petitioner by the respondents. The notice issued by the respondents was duly repli
