N. M. KASLIWAL J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a substantive Assistant Manager in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (herein-after referred to as 'the Corporation' ). By order dated June 8, 1983 (Annexure 1), the petitioner and 12 other Assistant Managers were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis on the post of Deputy Manager for a period of six months or till persons selected by Departmental Promotion Committee were available. This appointment was extended from time to time and the last order was dated April 25, 1984, by which extension was granted on ad hoc officiating basis for a period of six months. THE case of the petitioner is that he was expecting a further order of extension but by order dated November 13, 1984 (Annexure R/2) the petitioner and two others namely Shri K. S. Singhal and R. K. Pokharna were reverted to the post of Assistant Manager with immediate effect. THE case of the petitioner is that though he was reverted on the post of Assistant Manager but 25 persons including 10 of those who were appointed with the petitioner initially were given further extension and new appointments were also made on the post of Deputy Manager. It has been further alleged that according to the seniority list dated March 29, 1984, all the other persons except Shri M. K. Sharma, who have been continued on the post of Deputy Manager were junior to the petitioner. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner was put under suspension during this period but the order of suspension was revoked by order dated September 15, 1984. A memorandum informing the petitioner that an inquiry is proposed to be held against him was also issued on September 14, 1984. After the reinstatement of the petitioner from suspension on September 15, 1984 he was kept awaiting posting order from September 15, 1984 to September 23, 1984 and thereafter, he was transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur vide order dated September 24, 1984. THE petitioner joined as Deputy Manager at Jodhpur on October 1, 1984. THE case of the petitioner is that after his joining at Jodhpur on October 1, 1984, he effected recovery of loans to the extent of Rs. 1609 Lacs which was highest since April, 1984 at least. THE case of the petitioner as such is that his reversion is illegal inasmuch as it was discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as persons junior to him have been kept on the post of Deputy Manager. It has also been alleged that the reversion of the petitioner is further illegal for the reason that it was penal in character. According to the petitioner, the only reason for his reversion was the supposed delinquency which the petitioner is taken to have committed in respect of which an inquiry has already been commenced against him THE inquiry has not yet been held and concluded and the reversion could not have been made unless the charges were proved against the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition mentioned that the only reason which the petitioner can think of as having prompted the respondent Corporation to effect the reversion of the petitioner is the pendency of an inquiry against him. It has been further alleged that the inquiry commenced against the petitioner by serving a memorandum dated September 14, 1984. Earlier to this the petitioner was suspended by an order dated April 25,1984. It has been further alleged that this inquiry aforesaid was revoked as the matter was not serious enough to warrant his suspension. THE petitioner was reinstated by an order dated September 14, 1984. In reply to the show cause notice, that Corporation stated that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner's last order of extension was dated April 25, 1984. A perusal of the same would show that the petitioner's appointment was further extended for a period of six months on an ad hoc basis or till the persons selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee were available. It has been further submitted that the order of reversion of the petitioner was issued on November 13, 1984 alongwith two other persons namely S/shri K. S. Singhal and R. K. Pokharna, who were also reverted. It has been further alleged by the Corporation that since the petitioner's working was not found satisfactory, he was not granted further extension on ad hoc officiating basis. It was wrong to state by the petitioner that the inquiry against the petitioner has been revoked. The inquiry is still continuing. The preliminary inquiry report has been received and a final charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. Thus the allegation of the petitioner that simply because he had been reinstated and as such the inquiry has been dispensed with is absolutely wrong and is denied. The petitioner had made absolutely false averment in this regard that the inquiry had been revoked and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has been further submitted by the Corporation that 13 persons were appointed as Deputy Manager on ad hac officiating basis by order dated June 8,1983 but the petitioner's working was no found to be satis-factory and he has been reverted along with two other persons, whose work was also not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner has no right to the post of Deputy Manager as his appointment was purely ad hoc and temporary and his working has not been found to be satisfactory and therefore, he can be reverted at any time. It has been further submitted by the Corporation that so far as the pendency of inquiry is concerned, if after the inquiry the petitioner is found to be guilty then alone the punishment will follow but simply because of pendency of inquiry, it cannot be said that the reversion of the petitioner is penal in character. The last extension of the petitioner expired on October 25, 1984, and thereafter, he was not given further extension as his work was not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner then filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. In the rejoinder it was submitted that at no stage the petitioner was informed in any manner whatsoever that his work has not been found to be satisfactory. It was further alleged that a clarification of what has been stated in para 5 of the writ petition was necessary. In para 5 of the writ petition it had come to be staled "this inquiry aforesaid was revoked as the matter was not serious enough to warrant his suspension" but use of word 'inquiry' was just a mistake which was apparent both from the latter part of this para and from the writ petition as well. The mistake as such is regretted. On December 10, 1984, Shri S. N. Thanvi, General Manager (Administration), Rajasthan Financial Corporation filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that the Corporation had reviewed cases of all the Assistant Managers, who were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis for a period of six months till persons selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee were available. At the time of review of all the candidates the case of Shri K. K. Jain (petitioner ) was also considered and it was found that even after his reinstatement, his work has not yet improved and various complaints involving his integrity were received. It was, therefore, considered that he may be reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Manager.
(3.) MR. MRidul, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has been reverted from the officiating post of Deputy Manager to his substantive post of Assistant Manager while juniors to the petitioner have been retained on the post of Deputy Manager and this is a case of discrimination plain and simple. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh (1 ). It has been further submitted by Mr. Mridul that it has been admitted in the affidavit of Shri S. N. Thanvi that the case of the petitioner was considered at the time of review of all the candidates and it was found that even after the reinstatement of the petitioner his work had not improved. The petitioner had joined his post of Deputy Manager after reinstatement on October 1, 1984 and as such the material for holding that the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory must be between October 1, 1984 and November 13, 1984. It is submitted that the petitioner has categorically stated in his counter affidavit that there was nothing adverse against him in the record between October 1, 1984 and November 12, 1984 except that an inquiry had been initiated against him prior to October 1, 1984. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Mridul that it was manifest that it was on account of the inquiry alone that the reversion of the petitioner has been ordered. It is submitted that if the reversion has been made on account of the pendency of inquiry then the order of reversion is penal in character and reliance in this regard has been placed on The State of Rajasthan vs. Amolak Chand (2 ). Mr. A. K. Mathur appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager was merely on ad hoc officiating basis and such period had come to an end on October 25, 1984. So far as the inquiry is concerned, the same had nothing to do with the order of reversion. The petitioner has been served with charges after holding preliminary inquiry and action would be taken separately in the inquiry after the conclusion of such inquiry according to law. The case of the petitioner for further extension was considered independently of any inquiry pending against him and as stated by Shri Thanvi in the affidavit it was found that even after reinstatement the work of the petitioner had not yet impro-ved and various complaints involving integrity of the petitioner were received and it was, therefore, considered that the petitioner may be reverted on substantive post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner had no right to continue on the post of Deputy Manager and his reversion was made as he was not found to be suitable to continue on the post of Deputy Manager. It was further submitted that there was no question of any discrimination as the reversion of the petitioner has been made on the ground of unsuitability of the petitioner for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory and this makes the petitioner a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service though they might be junior to the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on The Manager, Govt. Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa (3 ). ;