P.N.SHINGHAL, J. - (1.) AS a common question of law arises in these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel and will be disposed of by a single judgment.
(2.) PETITIONER Rameshwarlal (in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 70 of 1968) was an employee of the State Government as a lower Division clerk in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department. He passed the Accounts Clerk's qualifying Examination in 1964. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, and the petitioner's name appeared in the seniority list of the lower division clerks of the Corporation. He was selected for promotion as a Commercial Accounts Clerk, against a temporary post, by order Ex. 3 dated August 7, 1965, and was posted in that capacity at Udaipur. The State Government issued a notification on April 15, 1966 by which the employees were asked to exercise their option whether they wanted to continue in the service of the Corporation or of the State. The petitioner exercised the option to serve as an employee of the Corporation, and his service was thereafter transferred to the Corporation. The Corporation, however, issued order Ex. 5 dated December 29, 1967 reverting him as a lower division clerk on the ground that his work was not reported to be satisfactory as he had made some forged entries in the cash book. The petitioner has challenged that order on the grounds that it was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. He has also urged that there was violation of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, which are said to have been adopted under a resolution of the Corporation dated September 24, 1965. Some other grounds have also been taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them as they have not been referred during the course of the arguments. The petitioner has prayed that the order (Ex. 5) of his reversion dated December 29, 1967 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to interfere with his work as an Accounts Clerk in the service of the Corporation. Mahesh Bahadur Barnie (petitioner in S.B. Civil wit petition No. 106 of 1968) was working as a Development Officer in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation when he was dismissed by order Ex. 14 of the Zonal Manager of the Corporation dated July 15, 1967. It has been urged by him that the order of his dismissal was passed in breach of Regulation 39(1) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960, and that certain other procedural irregularities were committed. He has urged further that the charges were not established against him and that a perverse view was taken of the evidence. He has also complained that his appeal against the order of his dismissal was wrongly rejected. He has therefore prayed for quashing the aforesaid order of his dismissal from the service of the Corporation
(3.) H .L. Bansal (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 193 of 1971) was also Development Officer in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation, but he was removed from service by order Ex. 12 dated January 24, 1970. He has urged that his dismissal was ordered in breach of the Regulations of the Corporation and the principles of natural justice, that the authorities concerned were biased against him, and that there was failure to consider some of the relevant evidence. He has also complained that certain terminal benefits were not allowed to him, and has prayed that the order of his removal may be quashed and he may be given all the benefits as it that order had never been passed.;