SAW/188/2026 of RAMESH KUMAR Vs RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 3 August 2026

Order

03/08/2026

1. The issue raised in present writ petition is with regard to the validity of order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the respondent – RSRTC which reads as under :- “Jh jes”k dqekj tkaxw iq= Jh dkywjke] fLFkj osru
ोबेशनरीVªsuh ifjpkyd] ckM+esj vkxkj dh INTIGRATY UNQUESTIONABLE ugha gksus rFkk izf”k{k.kdky esa budk vkpj.k o lsok,W larks’ktud ugha ik;s tkus ij budh lsokvksa dh vko”;drk ugha gksus ls jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe deZpkjh LFkkbZ vkns”k 1965 dh /kkjk 8 ¼III½ ds rgr rFkk fu;qfDr vkns”k esa oaf.kZr “krksZa vuqlkj budk ifjoh{kkdky rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr djus gq, fuxe lsok ls i`Fkd ¼Terminate½ fd;k tkrk gSA”

2. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that appellant – petitioner was terminated from service based on the

(2 of 3) [SAW-188/2026] finding that his integrity was not unquestionable and that his conduct at service was not satisfactory.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was served with charge-sheet and departmental proceedings were initiated on allegations of his allowing passengers to travel without ticket, which he has denied. No finding has been arrived at in the departmental proceedings and before the proceedings could be concluded, the respondents have invoked the provisions of Rule 8(iii) of RSRTC Standing Orders, 1965 and terminated appellant during the period of probation. 3.1 Learned counsel submits that the order is purely stigmatic and has relied on order passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 742/2018 (Ramesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.), wherein this Court, after considering the law laid down in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Palak Modi & Anr reported in 2013 AIR SCW 76 and Union of India vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi reported in AIR 2010 SC 3493, passed order dated 06.05.2019, relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced hereinbelow: - “5. The rulings in Palak Modi (supra) as well as several previous decisions, incluidng Union of India Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi [AIR 2010 SC 3493], are clear that while it is open to the employer to dispense with services of temporary employee or probationer on a ground of suitability with a non-stigmatic order, at the same time, if the termination order is facially stigmatic, it has to be preceded by an inquiry and due opportunity to the concerned individual. In the present case, the reference to the misconduct alleged is not merely vague. The impugned order of termination cites various dates and other details. This leaves no manner of

(3 of 3) [SAW-188/2026] doubt to the Court that what the employee was intended or destined to be visited with, was a stigmatic order.

6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The writ petition has to succeed. At the same time, it is open to the respondents to proceed and hold a regular inquiry in accordance with its Rules.

7. The respondent Corporation is also at liberty to pass appropriate orders with respect to the treatment of the appellant/petitioner for the period he was out of service, as to whether he has to be under suspension; the quantum of salary etc.”

4. We find that the law as settled in the aforesaid judgment would apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case.

5. Consequently, the present special appeal is hereby allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge as well as order dated 02.07.2015 passed by respondent – RSRTC are quashed and set aside. We further direct that the judgment passed in case of Ramesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of the appellant.

6. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 22/SHASHI KANT AWASTHI-JATIN SEHGAL