BALIA, J. - (1.) PETITION comes up for orders on three applications. One is application dated 1. 7. 89 for listing the case for hearing at an early date. Application is not pressed for the present and is, therefore, dismissed as having not pressed at this stage.
(2.) THE second application is dated 25. 10. 91 for deleting the name of State of Rajasthan from the array of the parties as the relief claimed is only against Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and no relief is claimed against State of Rajasthan. Application dt. 25/10/91 is allowed and the name of State of Raj. is deleted from the array of the respondents. Third application is dated 25. 10. 91 seeking amendment of the writ petition on the ground that certain facts could not be disclosed at the time of the filing of the writ petition and necessary documents remained to be filed. By perusal of the amendment application, I find that virtually the petitioner seeks to replace the old writ with new facts and new grounds by deleting the existing facts and existing grounds after the writ petition has been pending hearing for almost seven years and documents which he is seeking to produce alongwith the amendment petition are of a date prior to the filing of the writ petition. The amendment application does not appear to be bonafide and is, therefore, dismissed. At the request of parties the petition was heard on merits. The only two grounds raised in the writ petition are that imposition of impugned punishment of removal is in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the detailed procedure provided in standing order 34 has not been followed. According to petitioner himself, the first ground does not survive and in his amendment application, he has sought deletion of this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner also candidly concedes that this ground is not available to him. However, he presses into service that enquiry held against him is not in accordance with the Standing Order 34 and, therefore, the order imposing punishment of removal is vitiated being in violation of Standing Order 34 as well as in violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) FROM Annex. 1, filed alongwith the writ petition which is an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur on 16. 6. 1983 in Industrial Dispute Case No. 5/81, the contention with regard to the petitioner's termination order passed on 27. 7. 78 as a result of enquiry, conducted against him was made subject matter of reference and the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated finally as under : ******** The award was binding between the parties and the only direction which was given to the respondents in pursuance of the aforesaid Award Annex. 1 was to give an opportunity of hearing by holding a summary enquiry and it was clearly held that in the present case holding of detailed enquiry was not necessary. This direction has been complied with and, therefore, no infirmity is found in the conduct of the enquiry so as to vitiate the order of punishment, passed in pursuance of an enquiry held as per the directions of the Industrial Tribunal vide its Award dated 16. 6. 1983 (Annex. l ). Petition is accordingly dismissed..;