Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 May 2019SAW/742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order terminating a probationer employee from service holding that a stigmatic termination order must be preceded by an inquiry and fair opportunity. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the employee's services pending regular inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order was set aside. The appellant is restored to service. The respondent is directed to hold a regular inquiry.

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs Rsrtc and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 742/2018

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Hari Ram Choudhary, aged about 37 years, R/o Ramsar Ka Kua, Parvatsar, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶8

The Executive Director (Transport), RSRTC, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

Chief Manager, RSRTC Jalore Depot, Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

06/05/2019

¶15

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of terminating him from the service on 20.01.2015. The respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter “RSRTC”), by the impugned order, recorded as follows:-

¶16

“jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] tkyksj vkxkj Øekad % eq-iz-tk-@laLFkk&1@15@ fnukad %

¶17

dk;kZy; vkns”k

¶18

Jh jes”k dqekj pkS/kjh iq= Jh ghjkjke fQDl osruHkksxh ifjpkyd tkyksj vkxkj ds fo:) f”kdk;r izkIr gksus ij bl vkxkj ds i= Øekad 1280 fnukad 29-12-2014 ds }kjk uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k] ftldk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS %&

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[SAW-742/2019]

¶21

vkjksih dh M~;wVh fnukad 16-12-2014 dks tks/kiqj&lkapksj ekxZ ij okgu la- 1009 ij ifjpkyd ds in ij FkhA vkjksih dh okgu dk fujh{k.k fuxe fujh{kdksa }kjk vkxeu vkdksyh le; 15%59 cts izR;sd ;k=h ds fVdV ns[kdj fd;s tkus ij okgu esa dqy 48 ;k=h ik;s x;s] ftuesa ls rhu ;k=h fcuk fVdV ik;s x;s] ftudk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS %&

¶22

okxjk&vkdksyh 6-00 :- X 3 ;k=h fc-fV- =+ 18-00 :-

¶23

mDr fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa ds fVdV fujh{kdksa }kjk vkjksih dh bZVh,e latkyksj 00021 ls fVdV fdjk;k jkf”k :i;s 18@& fujh{k.k iwoZ olwy dj pqds FksA fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa ls vf/kekj jkf”k olwy dj vkjksih ifjpkyd dks fnyk;h x;hA mDr vk”k; dk fjekdZ bZVh,e la- tkyksj00021 esa vafdr dj VhvkbZ@,VhvkbZ fjiksVZ nks izfr;ksa esa fudkyh x;hA ftl ij fujh{kdksa] vkjksih ifjpkyd ,oa pkyd ds lgefr Lo:i gLrk{kj ekStwn gSA vxj okgu dk fujh{k.k le; ij ugha gqvk gksrk rks vkjksih }kjk mDr fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa ls olqy dh x;h fdjk;k jkf”k :i;s 18@& vius futh iz;ksx esa ysdj fuxe dks vkfFkZd gkfu igqapkrsA tcfd vkjksih dk drZO; Fkk fd okgu esa cSBs leLr ;kf=;ksa dks oS/k fVdV tkjh dj gh okgu dks izLFkku djokrs ijUrq vkjksih ds } kjk ,slk u dj fuxe fu;eksa ,oa fu;qfDr “krksZ dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA

¶24

vkjksih ls uksfVl Øekad 1280 fnukad 29-12-2014 dk tokc pkgk x;k Fkk] ijUrq vkjksih us tokc izLrqr ugha fd;kA rRi”pkr bl vkxkj ds i=kad 1295 fnukad 29-12-2014 ds }kjk iqu% uksfVl izsf"kr fd;k] ftldh izkfIr jlhn izkIr gqbZA budk tokc Hkh izkIr gqvkA ftldk voyksdu ,oa v/;;u fd;k x;kA vkjksih dk tokc larks’ktud ugha gSA

¶25

esjs }kjk vkjksih dh i=koyh esa miyC/k leLr nLrkostksa dk Hkyh Hkkafr v/;;u ,oa voyksdu fd;k x;kA vkjksih ds fo:) iwoZ esa Hkh ckj&ckj fcuk fVdV Hkz’Vkpkj ds izdj.k gSA ftldk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS %&

¶26

Ø-la-	vkjksi i=kad@fn	ukad	vkjksi dk fooj.k
1-	1748@21-02-12 fn- 28-01-12 dks fc-Vh- 26:	02;k-	2215@22-06-12 rhu ekg ifjoh{kk dky c<+k;k] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh N% ekg rd
2-	2782@23-07-12 fn- 12-07-12 dks fc-Vh- 12:	02;k-	2804@31-07-12 rhu ekg ifjoh{kk dky c<+k;k] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh N% ekg rd
3-	2851@14-08-12 fn-03-08-12 dks fc-Vh 110:	05;k-	443@30-04-14 N% ekg ijhoh{kk dky c<+k;k] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh ikap o’kZ rd

¶27

(3 of 5)

¶28

[SAW-742/2019]

¶29

4-	3242@26-12-12	de vk; 91438 : dk ?kkVk
5-	957@19-11-13 fn-29-11-13 dks 02;k- fc-Vh 66:	452@04-05-14 rhu ekg ifjoh{kk dky c<+k;k] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh 02 o’kZ rd
6-	868@23-10-13 fn-25-09-13 dks 03 ;k- fc-Vh- 69:	543@02-06-14 rhu ekg ifjoh{kk dky c<+k;] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh 02 o’kZ rd
7-	586@12-08-13 fn-30-04-13 dks 02 ;k- fc-Vh- 140:	877@28-08-14 pkj ekg ifjoh{kk dky c<+k;k] osru dh 2 izfr”kr dVkSrh rhu o’kZ rd

¶30

mijksDr fooj.k ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd vkjksfir ckj&ckj fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa dks fcuk fVdV ;k=k djkus ,oa muls izkIr fdjk;k jkf”k dks vius futh mi;ksx esa ysdj vkjksfir }kjk yxkrkj nqjkpj.k fd;k tkdj fuxek dsk vkfFkZd gkfu igqapk;h tkrh jgh gSA vkjksfir dks vius bl izdkj ds vkpj.k esa lq/kkj djus gsrq dbZ volj iznku fd;s x;s] ijUrq vkjksfir }kjk ges”kk nqjkpj.k iw.kZ d`R; djus ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd og vius vkpj.k esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha djuk pkgrk gS ,oa drZO; ds izfr ykijokg gS] tks vkjksih ds fu;qfDr “krksZa dk mYya?ku gSA vr% ,sls ifjpkyd@fLFkj osru izkscs”kj Vªsuh dks vc vkSj fuxe lsok esa fujUrj cuk;s j[kuk mfpr] U;k;laxr ,oa fuxe fgr esa ugha gSA

¶31

vr% eSa eq[; izcU/kd ,oa izkf/kdr vuq”kklfud vf/kdkjh jk-jk-i-i-fuxe tkyksj vkxkj fuxe }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa ds vuqlkj vkjksfir Jh jes”k dqekj pkS/kjh iq= Jh ghjkjke fQDl osru izkscs”kuj ifjpkyd tkyksj vkxkj dks fuxe lsok esa cuk;s j[kuk fuxe fgr esa ugha le>rk gwWA vr% LFkkbZ vkns”k 1965 dh /kkjk 8¼111½ ,oa ¼iv½ ds rgr lsok,a larks’ktud ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k budk ifjoh{kk dky rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr djrs gq, fuxe lsok ls lsokiFkd (Terminate) djrk gqWA

¶32

lgh@& ¼egs”k dqekj oekZ½ eq[; izcU/kd] tkyksj”

¶33

2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the writ petition on the narrow ground that since the appellant/writ petitioner was a probationer, he could not claim any relief.

¶34

(4 of 5)

¶35

[SAW-742/2019]

¶36

3. This Court has heard the counsel for the parties. According to the appellant, the order of termination was plainly stigmatic and could not have been passed without hearing or grant of reasonable opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Saying so, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Palak Modi & Anr. [2013 AIR SCW 76] .

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the RSRTC, on the other hand, urged that the law is well settled that in exercise of the power to confirm or unconfirm the probationer is upon the employer by taking into effect all factors including merit. He relied upon Rule 8 of the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment, framed in 1965 in this regard.

¶38

5. The rulings in Palak Modi (supra) as well as several previous decisions, including Union of India Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi [AIR 2010 SC 3493] , are clear that while it is open to the employer to dispense with services of temporary employee or probationer on a ground of suitability with a non-stigmatic order, at the same time, if the termination order is facially stigmatic, it has to be preceded by an inquiry and due opportunity to the concerned individual. In the present case, the reference to the misconduct alleged is not merely vague. The impugned order of termination cites various dates and other details. This leaves no manner of doubt to the Court that what the employee was intended or destined to be visited with, was a stigmatic order.

¶39

6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The writ petition has to succeed. At the same time, it is open to the respondents to proceed and hold a regular inquiry in accordance with its Rules.

¶40

(5 of 5)

¶41

[SAW-742/2019]

¶42

7. The respondent Corporation is also at liberty to pass appropriate orders with respect to the treatment of the appellant/petitioner for the period he was out of service, as to whether he has to be under suspension; the quantum of salary etc.

¶43

8. The appeal is allowed in the above manner.

¶44

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶45

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶46

58-skm/-

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary v. Rsrtc and Ors.

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

Ravi Prajapat Vs State

State Vs Hanuman Ram and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs Sunita

Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Surendra Kumar Sangwan