Allowed

Suman Kumari D/O Shri Bhagirath Mal v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2019SAW/337/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Div Bench allowed appeal against Single Judge order dismissing writ petition over termination. Court held stigmatic termination order invoking integrity issues is exception to natural justice barring alternative remedy requirement, setting aside order and ordering reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order set aside; appellant to be reinstated within 30 days; no back wages; proper disciplinary inquiry permitted.

Suman Kumari D/O Shri Bhagirath Mal Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 337/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7284/2016

¶5

Suman Kumari D/o Shri Bhagirath Mal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Bidasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

The Executive Director (Admn.), Rsrtc, Headquarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Authorized Appellate Authority, Rsrtc, Headquarter, Jaipur. 4. The Chief Manager, Rsrtc, Sikar Depot.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi, Advocate

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Order

¶15

05/12/2019

¶16

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that she had efficacious alternative remedy to raise an Industrial Disputes under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In fact, the termination order was stigmatic in

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-337/2019]

¶20

nature as it has been stated that the integrity of the appellant was questionable. In similar circumstances, writ petition filed by a similarly situated employee-Sunita was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In an appeal (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017) filed by Sunita, Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2017. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.09.2019.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the present case is covered by the decision given by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017 and as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶22

Order dated 24.10.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017 reads as under:-

¶23

“ 1. Heard learned counsel for the

¶24

parties.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[SAW-337/2019]

¶30

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.”

¶31

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:-

¶32

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

We have perused the original office order in Hindi which uses the double negative to suggest that the integrity is questionable.

¶34

Thus, the impugned order being stigmatic in character, it cannot be treated as a simplte case of non-continuation of service during probation.

¶35

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of.”

¶36

In view of the above orders, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.06.2015 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.

¶37

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶38

(SABINA),J

¶39

Gourav/Jatin/20

Suman Kumari D/O Shri Bhagirath Mal v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumari D/O Shri Bhagirath Mal v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Ramswaroop Khatik Driver, S/O Shri Devilal

State of Rajasthan Vs Girdhari Lal Gupta S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop Gupta

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Anand Sharma andORS

Suman Kumari D/O Shri Bhagirath Mal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Komal Kumari D/O Shri Girdhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan