Milap Chand, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Anx. 4) dated May 4, 1985 of the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation), Jodhpur (Respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a conductor by the Regional Manager, Bikaner, in the year, 1979. In the year 1982, he was served with a charge-sheet (Anx. 2) by the Regional Manager, Corporation, Jodhpur. He moved an application (Anx. 3) on July 12, 1982 requesting him for providing copies of the relevant documents or to allow their inspection to enable him to file the reply of the charge-sheet. Neither the copies of the desired documents were supplied nor their inspection was allowed to him. As such he could not file the detailed reply to the charge-sheet. The respondent No. 3 appointed Enquiry Officer and he proceeded ex parte against him. He was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report. The respondent No. 3 passed the order (Anx. 4), dismissing him from the service, agreeing with the enquiry report. On knowing the order (Anx. 4), appeal (Anx. 5) was filed by him before the General Manager, Corporation, Jaipur (respondent No. 2). He moved application (Anx. 7) before him for the early disposal of his appeal. The appeal is still pending.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not file the reply to the charge-sheet as he was neither provided with the copies of the relevant documents, nor their inspection was allowed to him despite oral and written requests and he was greatly prejudiced. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority passed the order (Anx. 4) dismissing the petitioner without providing its copy to the petitioner, his order is not a speaking order and it simply contains that he agrees with the enquiry report. He lastly contended that petitioner's appeal has not so far been decided despite his written request for its early disposal and the petitioner is out of employment since them.;