Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN the present petition the question of law that arises for determination is, whether the respondent -corporation could terminate the services of the petitioner, who was working on the probation, by passing the order attaching stigma on him without holding any enquiry?
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as the conductor on the fixed monthly remuneration, on probation for a period of two years vide the order dated 19.12.2013. The services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 alleging therein inter alia that the petitioner had committed several irregularities while working as the conductor, for which the charge sheets were issued to him, and that the petitioner was used to commit misconduct/corruption and violate the Rules of the corporation, and therefore his performance was not found to be satisfactory during the period of probation. The services of the petitioner, therefore, were terminated with immediate effect as per Section 8(iii)(iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers And Workshop Employees, Standing Orders 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Standing Orders 1965"). It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya for the petitioner that the impugned order being stigmatic in nature and no enquiry having been held against the petitioner, the said order deserves to be set -aside. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Versus Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, : 1999 (1) SLR page 622, and decision of this Court in case of Rajendra Kumar Versus The Chairman, RSRTC & Ors.,, 2008 WLC page 359, in support of his submissions. However, the learned counsel Mr. Vinayak Joshi appearing for the respondent -Corporation submitted that the petitioner being on probation, no enquiry was required to be held, and the services of the petitioner could be terminated as per the provisions contained in the Standing Orders, 1965. Mr. Joshi has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni, : (1997) 8 SCC 461, in case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat & Anr. v. C.G. Sharma, : (2005) 1 SCC 132, and in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, : JT 2005 (7) SC 512.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was served with various charge sheets by the respondents for the alleged misconduct committed by him during the period of probation. However, the respondents without giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing in respect of the said charge sheets issued to him, passed the impugned order terminating his services with immediate effect stating that the petitioner is in the habit of committing misconduct/corruption and has violated the Rules of the corporation and therefore it is not desirable to continue him in service.;