JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Petitioner was appointed as a lower division assistant on temporary basis in the office of the Director, State Transport Services of the Government of Orissa on 25-6-1969 as per the order in Annexure-1. He continued service under the State Transport Department till 1-5-1974 when the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') was created u/s 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The services of the Petitioner stood transferred and he was absorbed in the Corporation service. He was subsequently promoted as a Grade II Assistant. In July, 1975 a disciplinary proceeding was started against him on a charge of gross misconduct in submitting forged medical reimbursement bills. The charge related to an act committed in the year 1972 when the Petitioner was serving under the State Transport services. After enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty and was served with a notice to show-cause why the penalty of dismissal from the service would not be inflicted on him - vide Annexure-A. He filed the writ application for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the disciplinary proceeding. During the pendency of the writ application the General Manager of the Corporation dismissed the Petitioner from service by his order dated 13-2-1980-Annexure-A. The Petitioner thereafter amended the writ application by adding a prayer for quashing the order of dismissal. 2. The order of dismissal is challenged mainly on two grounds: (1) The Corporation has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner in respect of an act committed by him in the course of his employment under the State Government. (2) The Petitioner has not yet exercised his option to serve under the Corporation and the period of exercising the option has not yet expired and till he has exercised his option and permanently absorbed in the Corporation service he is deemed to be serving under the Corporation on deputation. In view of the second proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner is without jurisdiction as the concurrence of the State Government has not been taken before initiation of the proceeding. 3. The stand taken by the Corporation is that the Petitioner was a temporary employee under the State Government and was absorbed in the Corporation Service. 3. The stand taken by the Corporation is that the Petitioner was a temporary employee under the State Government and was absorbed in the Corporation Service. By virtue of the instructions issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers u/s 34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act the Petitioner was treated to have been in continuous service under the Corporation from the date of his first appointment under the State Government. The Corporation has taken over the rights and liabilities of the State Transport Services. So the right to take action against the Petitioner for a prior misconduct did not lapse inasmuch as the taking over of all rights by the Corporation will include the right to take disciplinary action for any misconduct committed by him during the period of his employment under the State Government. 4. It was admitted in para 6 of the writ petition that the Petitioner was transferred and absorbed in the Corporation service after the Corporation came into existence. It was also not disputed at the time of hearing that the Petitioner has been absorbed in the Corporation service. Therefore, the question of exercising any option for absorption in the Corporation service does not arise at this stage. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 the State Government after consultation with the Corporation have issued general instructions regarding absorption of staff of the State Undertaking in the Corporation - vide notification No. 7205-T. dated the 13th May, 1974 of the Government of Orissa in the works and Transport (Transport) Department. Instruction No. 7 runs as follows: 7(a) All persons employed by State Government in the State Transport Service who have not been appointed substantially to any post in any Government Department whether employed as acting, temporary provisional or otherwise including contingent employee's, who would have continued to be so employed by Government but for the Transfer of the management of the State Transport Services to the Corporation, shall continue to be so employed by the Corporation in the same manner as the State Government would have done if the State Transport Service had continued under the State Government and on such employment they shall be deemed to have vacated their offices under Government and to have been offered and to have accepted employment under the Corporation: (Rest omitted as unnecessary). (b) The service of such employees under the State Government prior to such employment under the Corporation along with their service under the Corporation will count for service benefits under the Corporation and for this purpose the vacation of their offices under the Government as under instruction 7(a) will not amount to an interruption of their service. Instruction No. 9 runs as follows: 9(a) All disciplinary powers exercised by the State Government and the officer of the State Transport Services under the relevant Rules applicable in each case, shall pending passing of necessary Regulations by the Corporation in respect of disciplinary proceedings relating to its employees, be exercised mutatis mutandis by the Corporation and its corresponding officers respectively in respect of persons in the employment of the Corporation who, immediately before the taking over of the management of the State Transport Services by the Corporation were employees of State Transport Service. (Rest omitted as unnecessary). 6. By notification No. 7144-T dated the 11th May, 1974, the State Government in the Works and Transport (Transport) Department also issued the following general instructions in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. 4. All rights acquired, all debts and obligations incurred, all contracts entered into, and all matters and things engaged to be done, before the taking over of the State Undertaking by the Corporation, by the State Government or by any Officer of the State Transport Department duly authorised in this behalf, in connection with or for any purposes of the State Undertaking, shall be deemed to have been acquired, incurred, entered into or engaged to be done by the Corporation. 6. Where immediately before the date on which the State Undertaking is taken over by the Corporation the State Government are subject to any liability in respect of any sectionable wrong committed by any employee of the State Transport Department, in the discharge of his duties, such liability shall be the liability of the Corporation. 7. The Corporation shall arrange for defending or prosecuting any suit or other legal proceedings filed or commenced, by or against the State Government in matters pertaining to the existing State Transport Department or any employee of that Department before the date of taking over of the State Undertaking by the Corporation and pending on that day. 7. 7. The Corporation shall arrange for defending or prosecuting any suit or other legal proceedings filed or commenced, by or against the State Government in matters pertaining to the existing State Transport Department or any employee of that Department before the date of taking over of the State Undertaking by the Corporation and pending on that day. 7. The first contention of the Petitioner is that his services having been lent to the Corporation, no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against him without complying with the requirements of Rule 19 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. Rule 19 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1962, provides as follows: 19. Provisions regarding Officers lent to the Union or other State Governments etc. (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent to the Union or another State Government or an authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in the rule, referred to as the "borrowing authority") the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension in accordance with Rule 12 and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary action against him: Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent his services (hereinafter, in this Rule, referred to as the "lending authority") of the circumstances leading to the order of his suspension or the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be: Provided further that the borrowing authority is other than the Union or State Government, the concurrence of the lending authority shall be taken before such action is taken except that in the event of the Government servant being implicated in a criminal case such action can be taken by such borrowing authority against him in anticipation of such concurrence. In the event of disagreement between the borrowing and the lending authorities, the service of a Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the latter. xxx (The rest omitted as unnecessary). 8. The Petitioner was neither on deputation nor on loan to the Corporation. Rule 19 of the C.C.A. Rules could have been invoked if the Petitioner's services had been lent to the Corporation. The Petitioner has already' been absorbed in the Corporation service. Rule 19 is not applicable to the employees absorbed In the Corporation. 9. 8. The Petitioner was neither on deputation nor on loan to the Corporation. Rule 19 of the C.C.A. Rules could have been invoked if the Petitioner's services had been lent to the Corporation. The Petitioner has already' been absorbed in the Corporation service. Rule 19 is not applicable to the employees absorbed In the Corporation. 9. The next contention of the Petitioner is that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him in respect of an act committed during the period of his employment under the State Government. We are unable to accede to this contention. On 17-7-1972 the Petitioner submitted a bill falsely claiming medical reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 213 04 paise. The authorities of the State Transport Services suspected the genuineness of the bill and referred the matter to the Vigilance Police. After investigation, the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) by his letter dated 21-6-1975 requested the Corporation to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner. Thus it is clear that the enquiry against the Petitioner was pending at the time of his absorption in the Corporation Service. Instruction No. 9(a) quoted above clearly provides that all disciplinary powers exercised by the State Government and the officers of the State Transport Services under the relevant Rules shall pending passing of necessary Regulation by the Corporation, be exercised mutatis mutandis by the Corporation and its corresponding officers respectively in respect of persons in the employment of the Corporation. The Corporation took over the entire Transport Undertaking of the State Government and all its rights and obligations. Thus, the Corporation became a successor of the State Transport Department of the Government and was conferred with the powers to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over the employees transferred to the Corporation. 10. It is plain that the instruction issued u/s 34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. as quoted above, creates a fiction by which an employee under the State Transport Services, who is absorbed in Corporation Service, will have to be treated as if he had entered service under the Corporation on the date of his, first appointment by the State Transport Services. as quoted above, creates a fiction by which an employee under the State Transport Services, who is absorbed in Corporation Service, will have to be treated as if he had entered service under the Corporation on the date of his, first appointment by the State Transport Services. Under instruction No. 7(t) the services of an employee under the State Government prior to his employment under the Corporation along with his services under the Corporation will Count for service benefits under the Corporation and for this purpose the vacation of his service under the Government will not amount to an interruption in service. Thus an employee of the Govt. who has been absorbed in the Corporation Service will have to be treated as having been employed by the Corporation even during the time when he was serving under the Government. The legal effect of the fiction created by instruction No. 7 will be to tender him liable for disciplinary action in respect of any act of misconduct committed by him during the period of his employment under the State Government. 11. These considerations apart the C.C.A. Rules, 1962 under which the disciplinary proceeding was started do not impose any limitation or qualification as to the nature of the act in respect of which disciplinary proceeding can be instituted. It is not necessary that the act must have been committed by an employee in the course of his employment as a servant under the Corporation. It is, therefore, open to the Corporation to take disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner in respect of an act which cast reflection upon his reputation for integrity. To put it differently if the act is such as to reflect on the reputation of an employee for his integrity, there is no reason why the disciplinary proceeding should not be started against him for that act even though the act relates to a period of his employment under the State Government. The test is whether the act has some reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of his service or whether the act has cast any reflection upon the reputation of the employee for, integrity. 12. Mr. Jagadeb Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on two decisions reported Mohammed Ipayat Khan v. Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga and Anr. 1973 (2) S.L.R. 241. 12. Mr. Jagadeb Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on two decisions reported Mohammed Ipayat Khan v. Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga and Anr. 1973 (2) S.L.R. 241. and R.N. Sharma v. Union of India 1975 (1) S.L.R. 763, in support of his contention that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action for any misconduct committed by the Petitioner during his employment under the State Government. In our opinion, both the decisions are clearly distinguishable. In the former case, the Petitioner was an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to the new State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Re-organisation Act, 1955. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him by the Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,560.65 paise towards the value of shortage in foodgrains and gunnies of godown at Tandur which occurred during the period the Petitioner served under the State of Hyderabad. The proceeding was started under Rule 8(iv) of the Mysore State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which reads as follows: 8(iv). Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders to the State Government or to the Central Government, any other State Government, any person, body or authority, to whom the service of the officer had been lent. Construing the above rule, their Lordships hold that the services of the Petitioner were not lent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh by the State of Mysore and that Rule 8(iv) could have been invoked if the Petitioner's services had been lent to Andhra Pradesh Government and the Petitioner had caused loss by his negligence or breach of orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. As the Petitioner was the servant of the new State of Mysore and had not been lent to serve under the Andhra Pradesh Government Rule 8(iv) could not, at all, be invoked. It was further held that Rule 8(iv) did not contemplate a situation arising in the context of Re-organisation of States. Upon such findings, it was held that the Divisional Commissioner bad no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against the Petitioner. In the latter case, the Petitioner who was an employee of the Central Govt. in the Food Department was transferred to the Food Corporation of India on 15-11-1966. Upon such findings, it was held that the Divisional Commissioner bad no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against the Petitioner. In the latter case, the Petitioner who was an employee of the Central Govt. in the Food Department was transferred to the Food Corporation of India on 15-11-1966. On 27-4-1971, the Food Corporation framed charges against him. The charges related to the period when the Petitioner was an employee of the Central Govt. During the pendency of the proceedings the Corporation passed an order repatriating the Petitioner to his parent department. This order was challenged on the ground that the Corporation had no power to transfer back the Petitioner's services to the Central Government. The Court held that though the Central Government had ceased to exercise any control over the Petitioner and could not repatriate him for the purpose of disciplinary action yet it could request the Corporation to transfer back the services of the Petitioner and if the Corporation acceded to such a request, the transfer could be effected. Their Lordships, however, observed that in respect of the period during which the Petitioner was an employee of the Central Govt. and in respect of which period charges had been framed the Corporation had no jurisdiction to punish him for such misconduct. There is, however, nothing to indicate that there are provisions in the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and the Rules and Instructions issued thereunder similar to the provisions of Section 34 of the Rood Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and Instructions Nos. 7 and 9 which we have quoted earlier. 13. It follows from the foregoing discussions that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. N.K. Das, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed