Termination Order of Employee citing Integrity can’t be passed without Holding Inquiry

The Rajasthan High Court has said that no order of termination of employee 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.

The petitioner was working on probation as a conductor in the state road transport corporation. Allegations were raised against him of allowing passengers to travel without tickets on four occasions and he was served with a notice. Without considering the response filed by him, his services were terminated.

The petitioner argued that his termination could not be considered a simple or routine dismissal, as it was based on allegations questioning his integrity. Since the termination order carried a stigma, he contended that a formal inquiry was required before such an action could be taken.

On the contrary, the department submitted that since the services of the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory during his probation, his services were terminated.

After hearing the case, 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”.

“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.”

Therefore, the termination order was deemed punitive in nature. Since it was issued without conducting any formal inquiry, the Court found it legally invalid and unsustainable.

What Court Said?

“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.”

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)