1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6782/2010 Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs. RSRTC & Anr. Date of order : 12/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kailash Choudhary for the petitioner. ****** The petitioner has approached this Court against the order terminating his service. Admittedly, appointment of the petitioner was made on contract basis on the post of Driver. Shri Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner have been terminated on the charge of willful absence from duty and this could be done only after holding a regular enquiry and providing him opportunity of hearing in conformity with principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner has left the headquarters with due permission and after sanction of the leave from the period 16.12.09 to 22.12.09 and thereafter he fell sick and continuously remained sick till he was served with a notice dated 5.2.2010 requiring him to appear on duty 2 upto 16.2.2010. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 13.2.2010 for extension of leave. However, the respondents have abruptly terminated his services by order dated 24.2.2010. Learned counsel cited the judgement of division bench of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar vs. RSRTC & Ors.-2008 WLC (Raj.) UC page 485 to argue that when services of such an employee is terminated without enquiry, alternative remedy will not be a bar for entertaining the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition can therefore straight away be entertained even if the petitioner has not approached any other higher authority than the Chief Manager of Vidhyadhar Nagar depot, who has passed the order. It was argued that there was a stipulation that in the contractual agreement itself, for negligence of the petitioner, which causes loss to the property of the respondent-RSRTC or for absence without prior permission, the respondents would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the losses. This would entail 3 penal consequences and stigma for the petitioner and, therefore, enquiry was absolutely necessary. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that appointment of the petitioner was made on contractual basis. The respondents have served upon him notice on 5.2.2010 to say that he proceeded on leave for the period from 16.12.09 to 22.12.09 and thereafter he did not give any kind of information, nor did he applied for extension of leave. In that notice, the respondents gave opportunity to the petitioner to still report back on duty upto 16.2.2010, failing which his contract for appointment would be terminated. Petitioner did not even avail of that opportunity and rather insisted on extension of leave. Leave in the case of contractual employee of his status could not be extended for a indefinite period or for such a length of time, as the appointment itself was being made on contractual basis for period specific. I am not inclined to uphold the argument that the termination of the contractual appointment of the 4 petitioner should have been preceded by regular full fledged enquiry, as is made in the case of regularly recruited employees. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards some of the medical certificates, but those certificates were not produced before the respondents as evident from their notice dated 16.2.2010 and subsequently the petitioner sought to justify his absence by producing such certificates, that would not even otherwise justify the submission that the services of such an employee should have been terminated only after holding a regular disciplinary enquiry. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/