JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant failed before the Single Judge in challenging the order dated 17.2.2007 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan Sate Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC') terminating his s8r toes. He has come up in appeal. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall refer the appellant, 'the petitioner' and the respondent No. 1 and its functionaries, 'the Corporation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver cum Conductor initially for a period from 30th September, 2005 to 31st December, 2005 purely on temporary on the terms and conditions out in the office order dated 30th September, 2005. His services continued to be extended from time to time. On 8th February, a criminal case came to be registered at Police Station, District Tonk vide FIR bearing No. 38/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at the instance of Mohammed Asgar. In the first information report, it was alleged that the petitioner who was incharge of bus bearing registration No. RJ-26-P-0699 on a route from Tonk to Jaipur was being driven in high speed and as a result of that rash driving it collided with truck bearing No. RJ-14 1 G-8997. As a result of the collusion, few persons who were travelling in the truck got injured. The petitioner who was a driver and one Babu Lal Khati who was the conductor were confronted with the first information report and their statements were recorded wherein they admitted that the bus was being driven rashly. On the basis of the petitioner's statement as well as the statement of the conductor-Babu Lal, an order came to be issued on 17th February, 2007 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order by filing writ petition before this court. The Single Judge did not entertained the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had efficacious alternate remedy of raising industrial dispute and, therefore, no interference was called for. It is this order of the Single Judge passed on 30th May, 2002 which is subject matter of appeal. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Judge erred in declining to invoke high prerogative writ jurisdiction on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Judge erred in declining to invoke high prerogative writ jurisdiction on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order dated 17th February, 2007 terminating the petitioner's services came to be issued without holding any disciplinary enquiry against him. Although the petitioner was appointed initially on temporary basis for the period from 30th September, 2005 to 31st December, 2005 but it is not in dispute that his appointment came to be extended from time to time. If temporary employee like the petitioner who was working as Driver with the Corporation is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of rash and negligent driving and for which a first information report was lodged against him, it is all the more necessary that a disciplinary enquiry was held against him in respect of the alleged charge. The termination of the petitioner vide order dated 17th February, 2007 is not a termination simplicitor but is stigmatic as his services i 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 preceded by proper enquiry and in accordance with law otherwise such order of termination is rendered bad in law. 4. We are persuaded to refer to the brief order of the Supreme. Court in the case of Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 167 , wherein the Supreme Court held thus : "From the order of termination Annexure P-7, it appears that the same refers to the show cause notice dated 20.8.2002 which is to be found at Annexure P-5. It is stated therein that the appellant demanded kickback with a view to help the complainant to get a favourable order in the pension matter. That being so, there was a clear charge of bribery levelled against the appellant. No doubt, the appellant was a temporary employee, but if he is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary for the respondent Union of India to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. No doubt, the appellant was a temporary employee, but if he is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary for the respondent Union of India to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. In this case, admittedly, no injury was conducted, and that is obvious even from Annexure P-7, the letter described as disengagement of casual labour. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of termination Annexure P-7 dated 30.9.2002. This, however, will not prevent tie respondents from taking action in accordance with law." 5. We find no hesitation in holding that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram Maurya apply to the fact situation of the present case and that renders the order dated 17th February, 2007 terminating the petitioner's service bad in law. 6. An alternative remedy available to a litigant is not an absolute bar for invocation of High prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so, the Constitution does not hesitate in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction where an order passed by the State or its functionary or an agency or instrumentality of the State is found to be in utter disregard and flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, if the petitioner did not avail of the mechanism provided by the Industrial Disputes Act by raising an industrial dispute with regard to his termination, in our view, it cannot be held to have dis-entitled the petitioner from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The Single Judge failed to appreciate and consider peculiar fact situation of the case, particularly, that the order of termination dated 17th February, 2007 has been passed without holding any enquiry and on its face that order appears to be not in accord with law. 7. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by the following order : (i) The order dated 17th February, 2007 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date of termination i.e. 17th February, 2007. 7. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by the following order : (i) The order dated 17th February, 2007 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date of termination i.e. 17th February, 2007. (ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondents immediately and in no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the order of this court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages. (iii) The aforesaid direction shall not, however, prevent the respondents in now holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if they desire to do so and in that event the disciplinary enquiry shall not be influenced by the present order. 8. No costs. *******