Rajasthan High Court
Pintu Kumar vs R S R T C And Ors on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6722/2015
Pintu Kumar S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Jatav, aged about 30 years,
resident of village & Post Surot Jatvada-Road, Tehsil Hindon City,
District Karoli.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Raod Transport Corporation through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jhalawar Depot. District Jhalawar, (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Saini for Mr. S.K. Singodiya.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
12/07/2021
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar
Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.8572/2015) where in on 23.02.2021, the
following order was passed:-
"Both the counsels agreed that issue involved in
the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated
by the Division Bench in its judgment passed in
DBSAW No.411/2019, decided on 09.09.2020
wherein the Division Bench has followed its earlier
order passed in DBSAW No.812/2017 dated
24.10.2017 and passed the following order:
(2 of 3) [CW-6722/2015]
"Order dated 24.10.2017 passed in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.812/2017 reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Vide impugned order dated 03/04/2017 the
writ petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed on the reasoning that the appellant has
an efficacious alternative remedy to raise an
industrial dispute under Section 10 of the I.D.
Act, 1947.
3. The order terminating services of the
appellant, while the appellant was on probation,
is clearly stigmatic inasmuch as it uses the
expression that the integrity of the appellant was
questionable. In the decision reported as 2008
WLC (Rajasthan) 485, Ram Gurjar versus RSRTC,
a Division Bench of this Court noted that in view
of the law declared by the Supreme Court where
termination was stigmatic and principles of
natural justice were violated merely because
there was an alternative remedy, was no ground
to refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction.
4. In our opinion, directions which were required
to be issued by the learned Single Judge, were
the same as was directed by the Division Bench
of this Court in aforenoted decision.
5. We dispose of the appeal setting aside the
order dated 29/06/2015 terminating the
appellant's service. The appellant shall be
reinstated within 30 days from today. She will not
be entitled to any back wages. The respondents
are permitted to hold a proper disciplinary inquiry
against the appellant."
Order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.4894/2018 (I.A. No.137225/2018) reads as
under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
We have perused the original office order in Hindi
which uses the double negative to suggest that
the integrity is questionable.
Thus, the impugned order being stigmatic in
character, it cannot be treated as a simplte case
of non-continuation of service during probation.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending
application stands disposed of."
In view of the above orders, this appeal is
allowed. Impugned order dated 03.12.2014
terminating the services of the appellant is set
aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service
within 30 days from today. Appellant will not be
entitled to any back wages. The respondents are
permitted to hold a proper disciplinary inquiry
against the appellant, if so advised."
In the present case also, the service of the
petitioner is found to be stigmatic. The same is
(3 of 3) [CW-6722/2015]
set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in
service within 30 days from today. However, he
shall not be entitled to any backwages. The
respondents would however, be free to hold the
proper disciplinary enquiry, if needs so arises.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed in
aforesaid terms.
All the pending application/s also stand disposed
of.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not
disputed this fact.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed
of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar (supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
