Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bharat Lal Jaga vs The Managing Director Rsrtc Anr on 22 April, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5295/2011 Bharatlal Jaga Versus The Managing Director, Raj. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 22/04/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal, for petitioner Mr. Rajeev Surana, for respondents
*** By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure-4) wherein two incidents of carrying passengers without tickets have been reported but the order was passed without conducting inquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel submits that the impugned termination order is not sustainable in the eye of law because it has been issued without holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the termination of the petitioner vide order dated 02.02.2010 is not a termination simplicitor but is stigmatic as his services were brought to an end, alleging carrying passengers without ticket. A punitive order of termination from service has to be preceded by proper inquiry and in accordance with law otherwise such order of termination is bad in law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated April 22, 2008 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.806/2007, Ram Raj Gurjar Vs. RSRTC & Ors., wherein the Division Bench has been pleased to dispose of the appeal of Ram Raj Gurjar by the following order:-
(i) the impugned termination order dated 17th February, 2007 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date of termination i.e. 17th February, 2007;
(ii) the petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondent immediately and in no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the order of this Court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages;
(iii) the aforesaid direction shall not, however, prevent the respondents in now holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if they desire to do so and in that event the disciplinary inquiry shall not be influenced by the present order.
Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the factual aspects of the case as well as the legal position settled by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Raj Gurjar (supra). However, counsel submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated as per the terms of the contract.
Having considered the rival submissions and going through the impugned termination order, I am of the view that the impugned order is stigmatic thus cannot be made unless a disciplinary inquiry is conducted as per law. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Ram Raj Gurjar (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by the following orders:-
(i) the impugned termination order dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date of termination;
(ii) the petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondents immediately and in no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the order of this Court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages;
(iii) the aforesaid direction shall not, however, prevent the respondents in now holding a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, if they desire to do so and in that event the disciplinary inquiry shall not be influenced by the present order.
(iv) If respondents take decision to initiate inquiry against the petitioner, they are directed to complete the same, if possible, within a period of three months. The petitioner will co-operate with the respondents and in case of non-co-operation, the respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to take proper decision to avoid delay in completion of inquiry.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/5295CWP2011.doc Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.