RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) IN the above writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of his termination dated 26.6.1981 (Ex. 3).
(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was first appointed as Security Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 250 -380 on 17.11.1978 with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he continued in its service until his services were terminated by the order Ex. 3 dated 26.6.1981. The impugned order simply states that the services of the petitioner are no more required and, therefore, his services are brought to an end. Reference has made to Rule 13(ii) of the Raj. State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. It has also been placed on record that just before the order of termination, a complaint was made against the petitioner by the Corporation on 21.6.1981 on the allegation of theft and on 24.6.81, the petitioner was put under suspension. The petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order which has been couched as termination simpliciter is in fact punitive and he has been punished without holding any enquiry whatsoever for the alleged misconduct. Alternatively, it was submitted that if the order is not treated to be punitive but a case of termination simpliciter then too, the order is not sustainable as the same has been passed in complete breach of the provisions of Chapter v. - A of the Industrial Disputes Act without giving him any notice and compensation as envisaged under section 25F.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the order should be taken to be on its face value and is not a punitive at all and, therefore, there was no need to conduct an enquiry. However, the fact that the provisions of Section 25F relating to giving of notice before termination and payment of compensation have not been complied -with, is not disputed but at the same time, Mr. Purohit contends that looking to the facts that a complaint in connection with commission of theft was lodged against the petitioner, in case of reinstatement, he should not be allowed any back wages. Both the learned Counsel were unable to state about final outcome of proceedings, taken against the petitioner in pursuance of FIR dated 21.6.1981.;