Allowed

Hanuman Singh v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CW/15229/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's probationary services. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the Court quashed the termination orders based on allegations of misconduct, directed reinstatement within three months, and set aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 22.12.2014 quashed; Petitioner directed to be reinstated within three months; Liberty granted to pass fresh order.

Hanuman Singh Vs Rsrtc and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8096]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15229/2017

¶4

Hanuman Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of Village And Post Mahlana North, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu Raj..

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chaumu House, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶8

The Chief Manager, Rsrtc, Sri Ganganagar Depot, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

The Chief Manager., Rsrtc, Ajaymeru Depot, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Nehra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Harish Purohit

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

15/02/2024

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 13.08.2015 rendered by a Co-ordinate bench in a bunch of writ petition, led by Hanuwant Singh vs. RSRTC & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.9242/2014.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

¶17

In the case of Hanuwant Singh (Supra), this Court has

¶18

observed thus :-

¶19

“Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶20

The proposition of law as expounded in the catena of judgments cited at the bar clearly postulates that if the order of a probationary employee’s termination is punitive and stigmatic and where the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:8096]

[CW-15229/2017]

taken, then the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. It was further held that in such cases, the Court can lift the veil for examining whether, in the garb of termination simplisitor, the employer had in fact punished the employee for misconduct. Considering the material available on record in its entirety and upon examining the impugned orders on the touchstone of the principles enunciated in the above judgments, this Court is in total agreement with the arguments advanced by the petitioners’ counsel that the impugned orders were founded on allegations of misconduct and cannot be termed as orders of termination simplisitor.

¶25

In the background of the above discussion, the orders under challenge cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

¶26

Consequently, the writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.11.2014,28.11.2014 and 2.12.2014, whereby the respective petitioners’ probationary services were terminated, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are given 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.

¶27

Stay petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

A copy of this order be placed in each file.”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition is allowed and

¶30

the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 is quashed and set aside.

¶31

The respondent – corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

¶32

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶33

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶34

193-Arun/-

Hanuman Singh v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naynesh Sharma Vs Union of India

Kanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ran Singh Vs Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig. Ltd. and Ors.

Dharma Ram Vs Shri Naveen Jain

Sanjay Gurjar Vs Union of India

Ram Ayodhya Yadev Vs Government of Rajasthan