VYAS, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18. 1. 2005 (Annexure 7) passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh and order dated 29. 1. 2005 (Annexure 9) passed by the Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Conductor upon which he was working prior to his termination.
(2.) ACCORDING to the brief facts of the case, petitioner's father late Shri Girdhari Lal was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called RSRTC) and while working on the post of driver he died. Therefore, petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 3. 2. 2004 on fixed salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month on probation for a period of two years on the post of Conductor. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner joined his duty and performed his duties sincerely. In the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that during his service tenure three charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner upon checking of the vehicle on different dates. The details of those charge-sheets are as follows: 1. Charge-sheet No. 1578 dated 23. 7. 2004 2. Charge-sheet No. 1579 dated 23. 7. 2004 3. Charge-sheet No. 6496 dated 11. 11. 2004 The contention of the petitioner is that he was facing disciplinary enquiry in above three months, and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 9. 7. 2004. It is further contended that the appellants, after issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner, were under obligation to conduct enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations of the Corporation, but it is very strange that all of sudden vide order dated 18. 1. 2005, while observing in the order that there are three charge-sheets pending against the petitioner and without completing enquiry against the petitioner, and while taking into account the fact that petitioner was appointed on probation, therefore, straight way termination order has been issued against the petitioner which is under challenge. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing departmental appeal in which all grounds were raised by the petitioner with regard to the validity and illegality of the order of impugned termination, but vide order Annexure 9 dated 29. 1. 2005 the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed without assigning any reason.
(3.) WHILE inviting attention towards above facts, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that termination order dated 18. 1. 2005 is totally illegal, baseless and unconstitutional, because no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted against the petitioner, so also no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before passing order impugned dated 18. 1. 2005 terminating the services of the petitioner, no notice and no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the petitioner therefore, the order of termination is against the principles of natural justice. Although petitioner was appointed on probation, but order of termination speaks that it cast stigma upon him. Therefore, for the reason of termination enquiry was necessary but his services have been dispensed with without completing enquiry. According to the petitioner this order is penal in nature and in view of the law laid down by this Supreme Court even in case of probationer no such penal order can be passed by the respondents. The petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards judgment reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 - Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. and judgment reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 V. P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab & Ors. In both these judgments it has been held by the Apex Court that probationer is like a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the principles of natural justice. According to petitioner's counsel petitioner's services were terminated during probation period invoking terms and conditions of his appointment, but it is also obvious from the order of termination that three charge-sheets for alleged misconduct were pending upon which no enquiry was conducted were taken into account for terminating the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned is penal in nature and it casts stigma. Therefore, it is obvious that by stigmatic order without holding any enquiry against the petitioner even though three charge-sheets were pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has been thrown out of job which is totally against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned is penal in nature and it has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice so also ignoring the procedure of law which is applicable for the employee of the RSRTC for taking disciplinary action. Therefore, without holding any enquiry disciplinary action has been taken which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also assailed the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the appellate authority. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the order of the appellate authority (Annexure 9) that this order is totally without application of mind and suffers from the vice of speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgment of a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in (1990) 4 SCC 594 in which it has been held that recording of reasons are mandatory in disciplinary proceedings. ;