Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition filed by a conductor of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘RSRTC’) challenging his termination order dated 13-05-2015 on ground of questionable integrity without any enquiry, a Single-Judge Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., quashed the termination order holding that the termination of an employee based on allegations of questionable integrity is a stigmatic order where holding enquiry is mandatory.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as conductor in RSRTC on 03-03-2014, with a probation period oftwo years. During his service,allegations were made on four occasions that he allowed passengers to travel without tickets. In response, a notice was served upon the petitioner by RSRTCon 01-05-2015 to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 03-05-2015.
However, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, RSRTC terminated his services vide order dated 13-05-2015, by invoking Clause 8 (iii) & (iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (‘Standing Orders, 1965’). Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Clause 8 (iii) and (iv) of the Standing Orders, 1965, and noted that Clause 8(iii) stated that a probationer was to be confirmed only upon successfully passing the prescribed tests and if the appointing authority was satisfied with the employee’s integrity and overall fitness for confirmation. Further, the Court observed that Clause 8(iv) dealt with compensation for a probationer removed during or at the end of probation if they fail to give satisfaction or pass tests.
The Court also noted that Clause 8(iii) of the Standing Orders, 1965 specifically deals with the confirmation or non-confirmation of a person working in the respondent Department during probation period. Further, while non-fulfillment of conditions might lead to non-confirmation, it does not automatically warrant termination of services.
The Court observed that if a person is charged for some illegality/wrong, then holding of enquiry in such cases is mandatory. Since the petitioner was involved in carrying passengers without tickets and the allegation was that his integrity is questionable, the termination order could easily be termed as an ‘order of termination’ having been passed with stigma. The Court further observed that because the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground of ‘questionable integrity’, the order was stigmatic, and holding of enquiry was sine-qua-non.
The Court observed that the termination order clearly showed that the petitioner’s services were terminated on account of his questionable integrity, thus the same was punitive in nature. Therefore, the enquiry was required to be held. Since RSRTC had passed the order without holding an enquiry, the same was not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court quashed and set aside the termination order dated 13-05-2015. However, RSRTC were given the liberty to pass a fresh order in the matter if so warranted, after following the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law.
[Prakash Manda v. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation RSRTC, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14008/2016, decided on 14-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Deepak Nehra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shashank Sharma, Advocate
