Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONER K.L. Sain filed this writ petition way back in the year 2001 with the prayer that the charge sheet dated 24.2.2000 and the order dated 12.7.2001 refusing to appoint one R.C. Jain, Accountant, to act as his defence representative and further the order dated 21.7.2001 rejecting his representation for appointment of Shri R.C. Jain as defence representative be quashed and set aside.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on 24.4.1974 in the Rajasthan State Tanneries Ltd., Jaipur and was later promoted as Senior Assistant. He was thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant on 8.4.1980 and he worked as such till 30.8.1991 when he was declared surplus and was relieved to join the services with respondent No. 3 namely Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short -RFC). Upon absorption in the services of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was appointed as Typist. Rajasthan State Tennaries Ltd. (for short 'RSTL') was a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, service conditions of its employees were governed by the rules applicable to the employees of the State Government. While earlier the Revised Pay Scales Rules of 1978 and 1981 were made applicable to the employees of RSTL, but the petitioner and other employees were not granted the benefit of Rajasthan Civil Services Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1987 and 1989. The petitioner and other employees jointly filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority, Tonk claiming such benefits. The application was contested by Rajasthan State Tanneries Ltd. But ultimately it was allowed by order of the Authority dated 26.6.1992. Similar order was passed by the Authority for the subsequent period which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.1992. This order was challenged by the RSTL in Civil Writ Petition No. 3233/94, which writ petition was however dismissed on 9.7.1998. According to the petitioner, at the time when he was declared surplus, he was being paid salary In the pay scale of Rs, 1200 -2050 and last pay certificate (for short -lPC) to this effect duly signed by the Managing Director of the said company was issued. However, the respondents absorbed the petitioner in their services in a much lower scale of Rs. 975 -1720, but his basic pay of Rs. 1800/ - was protected by giving him personal pay. Appointment of the petitioner by way of absorption as surplus employees was treated to be a direct recruitment. However the respondent No. 2, viz. State Enterprises Department, passed order on 17.5.99 holding that the benefit of pay revision on 1986 and 1988 was wrongly given to the petitioner and other employees of RSTL. In furtherance of the said order, respondent No. 2 passed an order pn 1.11.1999 directing that pay of the petitioner should be refixed and differential amount be recovered. In last para of the order, it was further directed that disciplinary action against the petitioner for committing fraud and forgery of documents be also separately initiated. It is pursuant to this direction that the RFC issued charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 5904/99 challenging both the orders in which initially operation of the orders was stayed. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondents for modification of the stay order raising an objection that charge sheet dated 24.2.2000 was not under challenge, therefore, the stay order cannot apply to disciplinary proceedings. On this application, this Court vide order dated 31.5.2001 while modifying the stay order permitted the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the application was filed by the petitioner for recall of the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed, the application was dismissed on 19.7.2001. The petitioner in view of the charge sheet issued to him, which has given rise to fresh cause of action, filed the fresh writ petition which is the present writ petition.
(3.) SHRI N.K. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent RFC has no authority to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner because he was not their employee when the alleged misconduct was committed. It was argued that RSTL was a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. It was therefore a separate legal entity. The petitioner ceased to be an employee of RSTL since 30.8.91 and his appointment with the respondent RFC was an altogether new appointment which was treated as a direct recruitment as per the order issued by the Government dated 2.7.1991 and further order dated 10.3.1992 issued by the RFC. His services were now governed by RFC (Staff) Regulations, 1958. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner is therefore without jurisdiction. Alternatively, Shri N.K. Maloo submitted that this charge sheet was result of order of the Government dated 17.5.99 and 1.11.99. The order dated 1.11.1999 being essentially an order in consequence of the order dated 17.11.99, both these orders have since been withdrawn by the Government. Shri N.K. Maloo in this connection invited attention of the Court towards the order of the Government in its State Enterprises Department dated 12.1.2004 by which both these orders were withdrawn. These orders were withdrawn because when the pay fixation and pay scale of the petitioner and other surplus employees of the RSTL were sought to be revised by various absorbing authorities including the - respondents, the affected employees as also the petitioner filed writ petitioners before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5904/04, K.L. Sain v. State and Anr. vide his judgment dated 22.10.2002 set aside the order dated 17.5.1999 and all consequential orders. Judgment of the single bench was upheld by the' division bench and also the Supreme Court. The Government therefore withdrew the order dated 17.11.99 and the consequential order dated 1.11.1999. The respondents, even otherwise, have no authority to now insist to proceed against the petitioner in the departmental action. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of division bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. P.D. Paliwal and Anr. RLR 2001(1) 467 :, RLW 2002(1) Raj. 310.;