Termination Order Questioning Employee's 'Integrity' Carries Stigma, Requires Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that no order of termination on account of questionable integrity could be passed under Clause 8(iii) and (iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (“the Orders”) without holding any enquiry.Clause 8(iii) of the Orders laid down that a probationer could be confirmed if he passes the prescribed test or examination and if the appointing authority was satisfied of his unquestionable integrity. Clause 8(iv) of the Orders laid down that no compensation to be provided to a probationer who was removed during or at the end of the probation, and failed to give satisfaction to the appointing authority or failed the test or examination. The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the consequence of non-fulfilment of conditions in Clause 8(iii) of the Orders did not automatically entail into termination of the services of the probationer, more particularly when the person was charged for some illegality, then holding of enquiry was mandatory. “In the present case, since the petitioner was found involved in carrying passengers without tickets and the allegation was that his integrity is questionable, consequently, his services were terminated, therefore, the same can easily be termed as an “order of termination” having been passed with stigma. Since the petitioner's services are being terminated on the ground of questionable integrity, therefore, the same is a stigmatic order and in such circumstances, holding of enquiry was sine-quo-non.”The Court was hearing a petition against an order terminating the petitioner's services who was working on probation as a conductor in the state road transport corporation. Owing to certain allegations against him of allowing passengers to travel without tickets on four occasions, he was served with a notice. Without considering the response filed by him, his services were terminated under Clause 8(iii) & (iv) of the 1965 Standing Orders. It was argued by the petitioner that the order of his termination could not be stated to an order of termination simplicitor since he was terminated on account of questionable integrity. And since the services were terminated by a stigmatic order, holding enquiry was necessary. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent submitted that since the services of the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory during his probation, his services were terminated. After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the arguments put forth by the petitioner and held that, “The consequence of non-fulfillment of conditions mentioned in sub Clause (iii) of clause 8 of the Standing Orders, 1965 does not automatically warrant into the termination of the services, more particularly, when a person is charged for some illegality/wrong, then holding of enquiry in such cases is mandatory”.Reference was made to the coordinate bench decision in Hanuwant Singh vs. RSRTC & Ors. in which it was opined that, “if the order of a probationary employee's termination is punitive and stigmatic and where the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, then the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice.”Hence, the order of termination was held to be punitive, and since it was passed without holding any enquiry, the Court held it to be unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. Title: Prakash Manda v The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 241Click Here To Read/Download Order

Termination Order Questioning Employee's 'Integrity' Carries Stigma, Requires Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags