CW 4605/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4605/07 Nayeem Khan Versus RSRTC & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 23/10/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. S.K. Singodiya, for petitioner Mr. G.S. Rathore, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann.9 dt.17th August, 2005 whereby his services were terminated without holding domestic inquiry provided under the rules of Corporation. Petitioner was appointed as Driver vide order Ann.1 dt.15th March, 2003 initially for a period of two months, but this fact is not in dispute that his services were extended by the respondents from time to time. On 8th August, 2005, a criminal case came to be registered against him at Police Station Sanganer for offence u/ss.279 & 304A IPC. On account of FIR being registered against present petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, brother of the complainant died on the spot which CW 4605/07 [2] was considered to be a breach of terms & conditions of appointment. As a consequence whereof, his services were terminated vide order Ann.9 dt.17th August, 2005. Counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing of order impugned and mere on an FIR being registered against him, it was considered to be alleged misconduct for terminating his services. Order terminating his services is stigmatic and could not have been passed without holding disciplinary inquiry against him. Denial whereof, their action is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in Ramraj Gurjar Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director & Ors. [2008 WLC (UC)-485]. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that once there is breach of terms & conditions on which petitioner was appointed, no error has been committed by the respondents in CW 4605/07 [3] terminating his services vide order Ann.9 dt.17th August, 2005. Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for a fixed term, but it is not in dispute that his services were extended from time to time and the order impugned Ann.9 dt.17th August, 2005 has been passed terminating his services without holding departmental inquiry against him and the premise for passing of order was alleged FIR which was registered against him u/ss.279 & 304A IPC. If temporary employee like petitioner who was working as Driver with the Corporation is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of rash & negligent driving on account of which FIR was registered against him. It is all the more necessary for respondents to hold departmental inquiry in respect of alleged charge which was made to be a basis for passing of order impugned. Division Bench in judgment [supra] held as under: “The termination of the petitioner vide order dated 17th February, 2007 is not a termination simplicitor but is stigmatic as his services were sought to be brought to an end on the ground of alleged rash and negligent driving. A punitive order of termination from service has to be CW 4605/07 [4] preceded by proper enquiry and in accordance with law otherwise such order of termination is rendered bad in law.” In the light of judgment [supra], writ petition stands allowed. Order terminating services of petitioner Ann.9 dt.17th August, 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate him in service without back wages, however, it will not prevent the respondents in holding disciplinary inquiry against petitioner if they desire to do so and in that event the disciplinary inquiry shall not be influenced by the present order. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4605CW07 23-10.doc