Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ challenge is given to an order dt. 01.11.1993 passed by the Secretary, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Shikshan Sansthan, Paota, Jodhpur. By the order aforesaid services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1993.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that a petition for writ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5777/1993, Kamlesh Kumar Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) filed by a co -employee of the petitioner, based on similar facts and legal contentions, has already been accepted by this Court vide judgment dt. 20.07.2004. By the judgment referred above this Court while setting aside the order terminating Shri Kamlesh Kumar Trivedi from service ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service. The contention of counsel for the respondents is that this Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Trivedi (supra) while examining validity of the order impugned erroneously reached at the conclusion that the order was punitive in character and could not have been issued without holding an appropriate and fair inquiry for the charges levelled against the employee concerned.
(3.) IT is empathetically asserted by counsel for the respondents that the learned Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Trivedi (supra) has not taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. : (2002)ILLJ690SC , wherein it was held that ''one of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full -scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld. '';