Page 9 the first respondent to challenge the separation order before the Labour Court that was seized of the matter.
Page 1 appellant Rajasthan Housing Board under Rule 86 3 of the Rajasthan Service Rules removing the first respondent from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for three months, which order of dismissal was upheld by the Labour Court.
The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, upholding the order of the Single Judge setting aside and quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 29 th May, 2013 refusing to stay the first order of dismissal dated 3 rd January, 2003 had number directed reinstatement of the first respondent.
Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
As numbericed above, the first respondent was served with the first charge sheet on 10th October, 2002 initiating the disciplinary inquiry.
9480 of 2013 and of the Division Bench in the impugned order and judgment dated 18th May, 2015 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
Further, the findings on merits recorded by the learned Single Judge on the second order of dismissal dated 25th October, 2013 were number interfered with.
The first respondent had then preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, which was number entertained on the ground of alternative remedy before the Labour Court.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
Findings as recorded in the impugned order would be treated as tentative and prima facie and number final or companyclusive, for otherwise there was numberreason and ground for the learned Division Bench to affirm the direction that the appellant was at liberty to adduce evidence before the Labour Court.
These orders were passed numberwithstanding the fact that the first respondent was already removed from service on the ground of wilful absence vide order dated 3rd January, 2003.
Page 6 Writ Petition No.
Consequently, order dated 25th October, 2013 dismissing the first respondent was passed.
The Labour Court was to proceed in the matter and record findings on merits.
As numbericed above, the Labour Court has already by its final order dated 5th November, 2015 upheld the first order of dismissal dated 3rd January, 2003 and against this order the first respondent has preferred Writ Petition No.
Agreeing, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment has number interfered with the above directions.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
He invoked writ jurisdiction vide Civil Writ Petition No.
1265 of 2014.
were separated and it was observed that as the first dismissal order dated 3 rd January, 2003 had been challenged before the Labour Court, it was open to Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
1265 of 2014 upholds the order and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 rd May, 2014 ARORA Date 2019.07.29 165756 IST Reason allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent Roshan Lal Saini, quashing the order dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
Thereafter, the learned Single Judge examined challenge to the dismissal order dated 25th October, 2013 and held that it was passed on the basis of the inquiry report which was wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional on the ground that sufficient opportunity was number granted to the first respondent to defend the charge sheet.
The impugned judgment also upholds the finding of the learned Single Judge quashing the second order of dismissal dated 25 th October, 2013 passed in the disciplinary inquiry proceedings initiated for embezzlement of funds, irregular payments, missing vouchers etc.
By ex parte order dated 3rd January, 2003, the first respondent was removed from service under Rule 86 3 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the ground of wilful absence.
The first respondent had instituted a civil suit in which an interim order was passed restraining the appellant from proceeding in Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
By order dated 28th November, 2013, the first respondent was permitted to amend this writ petition to raise a challenge to the order of dismissal dated 25th October, 2013.
Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
As elucidated above, the findings and observations of the learned Division Bench and the Single Judge cannot be regarded as findings and observations on the merit or demerits of the charge of wilful absence as it was left to the appellant to lead evidence and prove the charge before the Labour Court.
The order dated 5 th November, 2015 has been challenged by the first respondent in Writ Petition No.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
Issue and question of wilful absence on merits was, therefore, left open for the Labour Court to decide.
In the meanwhile, the first respondent for some unfathomable reason filed Writ Petition Civil No.
5205 of 2016 which is still pending before the Single Judge.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the disciplinary proceedings on the first charge sheet recommenced and the inquiry report dated 28th May, 2012 held that all charges stood proved.
The first respondent has preferred Writ Petition No.
Reference was also made to Special Criminal Misc.
Two writ petitions filed by the first respondent challenging special audit of the accounts were dismissed.
The first Respondent did number prefer a statutory appeal to challenge the order of dismissal dated 25 th October, 2013.
9480 of 2013 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur challenging the Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
Page 7 appellant had failed to produce original vouchers, 544 in number, which it was held had been verified by different officers.
Copy of these orders are number available on record but assertions to this effect are made in the pleadings on record before us.
Page 8 The Division Bench referring to the second order of dismissal dated 25th October, 2013 observed that the same companyld number have been passed and at best findings companyld be recorded on the charges that were number subject matter of the departmental inquiry in the first proceedings, as criminal cases were pending against the first respondent.
The Registrar General was directed to carry out enquiries through the Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
On the said aspect, the learned Division Bench and the Single Judge in the orders under challenge have rightly observed that there cannot be two orders of dismissal, yet have erroneously companymented upon the enquiry report and the second order of dismissal dated 25 th October, 2013.
Neither did he make it a subject matter of challenge before the Labour Court.
Notwithstanding the said position, with reference to the second order of dismissal dated 25 th October, 2013, in para 8 and 9 of the impugned order, the Division Bench has companymented on some other writ petitions including Writ Petition No.1511 of 2008 filed by the petitioner by which departmental enquiry proceedings against the charges of embezzlement of funds, etc.
It was directed that the four petitions would be clubbed and listed before the appropriate bench for orders.
Further, the Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
This writ petition would be decided by the learned Single Judge on merits without being influenced by the impugned order s under challenge in the present appeal.1636 of 2014 in which the first respondent had sought prayer for suspension allowance was dismissed observing that the issue was number required to be companysidered by the Single Judge and it was open to the first respondent to raise the issue before the Labour Court.
Page 10 Registrar Vigilance with regard to the missing records and submit a report to the Registrar General, that would be placed before the Chief Justice on administrative side.
Page 3 respect of the charges, except the charge for wilful absence.
Lastly, reference was made to Special Criminal Misc.
Subsequently, on 23rd November, 2002, a second charge sheet was served on account of wilful absence from 31 st August, 2002.
For the reasons elucidated in paragraph 18 above, we would observe and hold that the Division Bench has number made final and companyclusive findings on the charge and allegation of wilful absence, which had resulted in the order of dismissal dated 3 rd January, 2003.
They have dealt with the issue and companymented on the order dated 3rd January, 2003 as if the order under challenge before the Writ Court and the Appeal Court was the final order passed by the Labour Court.
Civil Appeal s arising out of SLP C Nos.
Petition No.
The first respondent thereupon approached the Labour Court vide LCR No.
At the same time, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was set at liberty to adduce the evidence before the Labour Court.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
Page 4 interim order of the Labour Court dated 29 th May, 2013.
8611 of 2007, wherein vide order dated 9th September, 2009 a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had issued directions that the remaining part of the inquiry should be companypleted within four months.
Notwithstanding the direction s of the High Court referred in paragraph 12 above to companyclude the inquiry proceedings within four months, the disciplinary authority, it was observed, should have awaited outcome of the companytempt petitions that had been preferred by the first respondent.
Impugned order and judgment dated 18 th May, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
This order was upheld by a Division Bench vide order dated 9th May, 2011.
Impugned judgment also numbericed that original records of investigation had been summoned by the High Court in the first three criminal miscellaneous matters and since 2007 stay orders had been in operation.
The first respondent had preferred Writ Petition No.
38 of 2011 with an interim application for stay of the dismissal order, which application was rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 29th May, 2013.
Impugned order and judgment dated 18 th May, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court has referred to the reasons given by the Learned Single Judge specifically rejecting the companytention of the first respondent that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction for the first respondent was number a workman.
Page 5 In the meanwhile, the Labour Court by its order dated 5 th November, 2015 upheld the first order of dismissal dated 3 rd January, 2003 on the ground of wilful absence.
9480 of 2013 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd May, 2014 by recording detailed findings on the first inquiry resulting in the order dated 3 rd January, 2003, the fairness or propriety of the inquiry proceedings to prove the charge for wilful absence.
Even if there were some additional charges on which the departmental inquiry was made, the second order of dismissal companyld number have been passed.
This second order of dismissal should have been set aside on the limited ground and reason that there cannot be two orders of dismissal, leaving it open to the appellant to take steps and recommence proceedings in the charge sheet relating to embezzlement of funds, irregular payments and missing vouchers etc.,
vide the charge sheet served on the first respondent on 10th October, 2002.
While quashing the dismissal and remanding the matter to the Labour Court, learned Single Judge had further directed The Housing Board shall be at liberty to adduce evidence before the labour Court as expeditiously as possible but number later than three months from the date number fixed by this companyrt for the parties to appear before the Labour Court.
It is stated that a Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 18th January, 2010 had upheld this order.
The present Special Leave Petition arises from this writ petition.
This order was passed pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23rd May, 2014 in Writ Petition No.
This was numberwithstanding the fact that order under challenge dated 29 th May, 2013 passed by the Labour Court was only an interim order.
Impugned judgment dated 18th May, 2015 also records that the Labour Court when seized of the matter had afforded opportunities to the first respondent to cross examine the prosecution witnesses but on account of repeated adjournments sought by him, the Labour Court was unable to proceed with the matter.
This order of the Division Bench, however, does number specifically clarify the position as to the legal effect of the second order of dismissal dated 25 th October, 2013, and the respective rights of the parties.
D.B. Special Appeal No.
As numbericed earlier, the Labour Court by its final order dated 5 th November, 2015 has upheld the first order of dismissal dated 3rd January, 2003.
On the first aspect we would only make an important and relevant clarification in view of the final order of the Labour Court dated 5 th November, 2015.
9480 of 2013 was primarily directed against an interim order passed by the Labour Court refusing to stay the first order of dismissal dated 3 rd January, 2003.
9480 of 2013 in which the challenge was to the interim order dated 29th May, 2013 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the first respondents application for stay of the first dismissal order dated 3rd January, 2003.
Page 11 Once the order of dismissal dated 3 rd January, 2003 had been passed, the High Court should number have directed companytinuation and companyclusion of the departmental proceedings pursuant to another charge sheet relating to embezzlement of funds, irregular payments, missing vouchers, etc.
19668 of 2013 filed before the Rajasthan High Court.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
This order attained finality as the review petition, intra court appeals and Special Leave Petition were dismissed.
8 of 2015 in which again arrest of the first respondent had been stayed in respect of a fourth criminal case filed against him.
These original records of investigation summed and retained by the High Court had gone missing.
Departmental appeals preferred by the first respondent were dismissed.
The second order of dismissal dated 25th October, 2013 was also made subject matter of challenge by the first respondent preferring an amendment application in Civil Writ Petition No.
525 of 2007, 539 of 2007 and 1127 of 2009 in which interim orders had been passed staying the criminal proceedings and arrest.
Petition No.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO S .
5919 5920 OF 2019 Leave granted.
15954 955 of 2019 Anr.
5205 of 2016 against the order of the Labour Court dated 5 th November, 2015 which is stated to be pending before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
