Harveer Singh vs R S R T C And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1399 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1399 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Harveer Singh vs R S R T C And Anr on 9 February, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                         (1 of 4)                  [CW-5456/2010]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5456/2010

Harveer Singh Son Of Shri Maharaj Singh, Gram And Post Rareh,
Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its
        General Manager, Head Officer, Jaipur
2.      The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
        Corporation, Jaipur
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma with Mr. G.L.Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L.Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

09/02/2021

1. The issue involved in the writ petition is no more res integra.

2. In the case of Hari Kishan Vs. Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation(SBCWP NO.5378/2010) decided on 18th

July, 2011 similarly placed person to the petitioner had also

challenged the termination order dated 20.3.2008 purportedly on

completion of the contract period and the Coordinate Bench

passed order as under:

"The question as to whether the order of termination is simplicitor or punitive has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Division Bench in the judgment Ramraj's case supra has also examined and observed in para 3 as under :-

(2 of 4) [CW-5456/2010]

"Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Judge erred in declining to invoke high prerogative writ jurisdiction on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order dated 17th February,2007 terminating the petitioner's services came to be issued without holding any disciplinary enquiry against him. Although the petitioner was appointed initially on temporary basis for the period from 30th September,2005 to 31st December,2005 but it is not in dispute that his appointment came to be extended from time to time. If temporary employee like the petitioner who was working as Driver with the Corporation is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of rash and negligent driving and for which a first information report was lodged against him, it is all the more necessary that a disciplinary enquiry was held against him in respect of the alleged charge. The termination of the petitioner vide order dated 17th February,2007 is not a termination simplicitor but is stigmatic as his services were sought to be brought to an end on the ground of alleged rash and negligent driving. A punitive order of termination from service has to be preceded by proper enquiry and in accordance with law otherwise such order of termination is rendered bad in law."

In the instant case, the order of termination simplicitor has been passed by the respondent but in the reply filed by the respondent it has been averred that he was held guilty of negligence and misappropriation on two occasions and he was habitual of carrying the passengers without ticket after charging fair from them and has caused economic loss to the

(3 of 4) [CW-5456/2010]

Corporation and for the alleged misconduct for which he was held to be guilty decision was taken to terminate his service vide order impugned dt.02.07.2008. It is not being disputed that neither any enquiry was held nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and order impugned being stigmatic and the misconduct as alleged being the motive behind passing of the order impugned without holding enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing, order impugned herein terminating his services is not legally sustainable.

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order terminating services of the petitioner dt.02.07.2008 (Annx.3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within thirty days from the date of production a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. It is also made clear that it will not preclude the respondents in holding disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if they so desire, but in that event the disciplinary authority may not be influenced by the observations made (supra). No costs."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the

petitioner had submitted indemnity bonds and was regularly

engaged in corruption practice. Two passengers were found

traveling without ticket on 31.3.2006. The petitioner deposited

fine and was served with warning and thereafter again he

committed illegality and as per terms and conditions of the

appointment order, his services have been dispensed with and the

order is not termination simplyciter.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. Keeping in view the law laid down as aforesaid, this court

finds that the order cannot be said to be simpliciter but is founded

upon the aspects mentioned in the reply relating to earlier