- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to challenge order dated 5.10.2009.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Driver-cum-Conductor vide order dated 7.6.2005 and his term was extended from time to time by the respondents. His services were terminated when he was found carrying passengers without tickets but, vide order dated 7.5.2007, he was again appointed on contract basis with a stipulation that petitioner will be assigned duty of driver only. However, vide order dated 5.10.2009, services of the petitioner were again terminated on violation of clause 11 of the contract by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that it is not a case of termination simplicitor and is otherwise covered by the judgment of this court in the case of "Hari Kishan Versus RSRTC & anr", SB Civil Writ Petition No.5378/2010, decided on 18.7.2011. It is prayed that this writ petition may be ordered to be governed by the judgment aforesaid. I have considered submission of learned counsel and perused record of the case besides judgment referred to above. This court, after taking into consideration judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court so as this court, held as under in the case supra :- "In the instant case, the order of termination simplicitor has been passed by the respondent but in the reply filed by the respondent it has been averred that he was held guilty of negligence and misappropriation on two occasions and he was habitual of carrying the passengers without ticket after charging fair from them and has caused economic loss to the Corporation and for the alleged misconduct for which he was held to be guilty decision was taken to terminate his service vide order impugned dt.02.07.2008. It is not being disputed that neither any enquiry was held nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and order impugned being stigmatic and the misconduct as alleged being the motive behind passing of the order impugned without holding enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing, order impugned herein terminating his services is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order terminating services of the petitioner dt.02.07.2008 (Annx.3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within thirty days from the date of production a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. It is also made clear that it will not preclude the respondents in holding disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if they so desire, but in that event the disciplinary authority may not be influenced by the observations made (supra). No costs." In view of aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is also allowed. The order dated 5.10.2009 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within thirty days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. It is also made clear that it will not preclude the respondents in holding disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. ;