JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of dismissal, Annexure 8, dated June 30, 1980. 2. The petitioner was originally in the employment of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and his services were terminated by the Bank by order, dated September 6, 1972. The petitioner along with 13 other employees of the Bank whose services were also terminated, raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Rajasthan, Jaipur. Before the matter could be decided by the Industrial, Tribunal, the petitioner sought an employment with the respondent, Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation"). The petitioner was given an appointment as Clerk by order, dated May 16, 1973 by the Corporation. Later on the post was re designated as Junior Assistant and from that post the petitioner was promoted as Assistant, Statistics Section w. e. f. October 25, 1978. During the continuances of the petitioner in the service of the Corporation, the question of wrongful retrenchment of the petitioner and 13 other workmen was decided by the Industrial Tribunal by award, dated July 21, 1977. The Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of the concerned workmen (except one) was illegal and directed their reinstatement with full back-wages. In the award it was further mentioned that the quantum of back wages will however, be determined by a separate legal remedy under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the Bank wanted to show that some of the workmen had been gainfully re-employed in the Bank itself and some other workmen elsewhere. The petitioner submitted an application under Sec 33-C (2) of the Act and the Central Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur by order, dated April 28, 1979. held that the petitioner was entitled to full back wages regardless of the fact whether he was gainfully employed elsewhere or not. The Bank challenged the order of the Central Labour Court, dated April 28, 1979 by filing a writ petition in this Court which came to be registered as S. B. Civil writ petition No 509/79, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Judge, Central Labour Court. Rajasthan Jaipur & Ors. In writ petition No. 509/79 , on a stay application moved on behalf of the Bank. Rajasthan Jaipur & Ors. In writ petition No. 509/79 , on a stay application moved on behalf of the Bank. Kudal J. passed an order on July 19, 1979 allowing 50% of the back wages to the petitioner and for the remaining 50% it was directed that the same would remain in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner till the final disposal of the writ petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that the aforesaid writ petition No. 509/79 has been disposed or of by me today by a separate order. It appears that after the payment of 50% of the amount by the Bank, the matter was brought to the notice of the Corporation as Managing Director of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was also one of the Directors of the Corporation. Be that as it may, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by the Corporation on May 3, 1980 that while he was working on the post of Clerk, re-designated as Junior Assistant the petitioner joined the services in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as per joining report, dated September 1, 1977 given to the Bank. It was also mentioned that since the petitioner had been obviously working with the Corporation from May 17, 1973 it was not open for the petitioner to join the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur with nut getting himself relieved from the services of the Corporation. It was also mentioned that it had come to the notice of the Corporation that the petitioner obtained an amount of Rs. 36,246.34 as back wages for the period from September 7, 1972 to August 31, 1977, that means including the period from May 17, 1973 to August 31, 1977 when the petitioner was also in the services of the Corporation. This amounted to getting the wages for same period of time from two employers. It was further mentioned in the charge sheet that under regulation No 22 of Chapter IV of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as (the Regulations) an employee of the Corporation has to remain whole time at their disposal. Further as per regulation No. 27 no employee can accept, solicit or seek an outside employment from office whether stipendiary or honorary without the previous sanction of the Managing Director. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as (the Regulations) an employee of the Corporation has to remain whole time at their disposal. Further as per regulation No. 27 no employee can accept, solicit or seek an outside employment from office whether stipendiary or honorary without the previous sanction of the Managing Director. It was further mentioned in the charge sheet that as per regulation No. 24 every employee is requited to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully. Again as per regulation No. 28 no employee can undertake part-time work for a private or public body or a private person or accept fees therefor without the sanction of the Managing Director. It was thus mentioned that the petitioner had violated regulation Nos. 24 and 27 and committed an act of gross irregularity and gross misconduct. The petitioner was asked to explain why suitable punishment under regulation No. 37 should not be imposed on him. The petitioner was also required to explain why the amount of salary and exgratia paid to him by the Corporation from May 17, 1973 to August 31, 1977 (the period for which the petitioner had also obtained wages from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) should not be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was given 7 days time to submit his explanation, failing which further action was to be taken against him. 3. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide Annexure 7, dated May 9, 1980 that he was surprised to receive the charge sheet. The matter between him and the Bank was pending in the Rajasthan High Court and was subjudice. The payment had been made to him under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court Only 50% of the amount was actually given to him and the rest was with the Bank in fixed deposit account. The amount was ordered to be paid to the petitioner by the Hon'ble High Court with full knowledge that he had been in service of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. The management of the Bank was fully aware with the legal position but simply to harass him and to take revenge was trying to use the management of the Corporation as a tool. 4. If was further stated in the reply that there was no question of contravening any provisions of the regulation. The management of the Bank was fully aware with the legal position but simply to harass him and to take revenge was trying to use the management of the Corporation as a tool. 4. If was further stated in the reply that there was no question of contravening any provisions of the regulation. After the award was passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal the petitioner had asked the management of the Bank to implement that award but the same had not been done. The petitioner enclosed a copy of letter written by him to the Bank for this purpose which was self-explanatory. The petitioner further submitted in the reply "certainly if I would have been allowed to join the duty by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, I would have immediately resigned from Rajasthan Financial Corporation but obviously it was never the case." It was further mentioned in the reply that no deductions could be made from his salary by the Corporation. The petitioner had been getting salary from the Corporation for the work done by him in the Corporation. So far as the amount paid by the Bank under the orders of the Court it was on account of their illegal action in terminating his services. These two separate things could not be inter-mingled. 5. It appears that the Corporation was bent upon to terminate the services of the petitioner and as such an order was passed on June 30, 1980 that the petitioner is dismissed from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect. It would be proper to reproduce the order, Anuexure 8, dated June 30, 1980 as the same is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition : "Whereas a charge sheet dated 3rd May, 1980 was issued to Shri S. C. Luhadia, Assistant, Statistics Section, Head Office, Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC), Jaipur regarding his alleged gross misconduct and violation of Regulation Nos. 24 & 27 of RFC (Staff) Regulations 1958. and whereas Shri Luhadia has submitted his explanation dated 9th. 24 & 27 of RFC (Staff) Regulations 1958. and whereas Shri Luhadia has submitted his explanation dated 9th. May, 1980; And Whereas on a careful consideration of the explanation of Shri Luhadia, the total circumstances and relevant record it has been held that the charges of accepting payment of substantial amount from SBBJ as back wages including wages for the period from 17-5-1973 to 31-7-77 when Shri Luhadia was in the service of this Corporation and mis-conduct against Shri Luhadia have been proved and therefore, it has been decided to impose penalty of dismissal under Regulation No. 37 (i) of RFC (Staff) Regulation; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under regulation No. 37 of RFC (Staff Regulations 1958, I, A.L. Roongta. IAS, Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, being the competent authority to impose penalty under the aforesaid Regulation do hereby dismiss Shri S.C. Luhadia from the service of Rajasthan Financial Corporation with immediate effect." 6. The case of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal is illegal, unconstitutional in contravention of all the regulations and principles of natural justice and also arbitrary and malafide. In has been further alleged that the impugned order does not give any reasons as to how the Managing Director reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him It does not say as to how and why the explanation submitted by the petitioner could not satisfy the Managing Director. No enquiry was held before issuing the dismissal order nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to defend himself. It was a matter of major penalty and the requirement of detailed enquiry in such a case could not be dispensed with. 7. It has been further alleged that the allegation that the petitioner joined the services of the Bank by submitting the joining report, dated September 1, 1977 during his employment with the corporation was wrong. A perusal of the joining report, Annexure 3, itself would show that the petitioner had only requested the Bank to issue necessary orders for implementation of the award. Cite question of submitting actual joining report and joining the services of the Bank would have only arisen after the issuance of such orders by the Bank. The petitioner could have never sought release from services of the Corporation unless he was assured of the proper implementation of the award by the Bank. Cite question of submitting actual joining report and joining the services of the Bank would have only arisen after the issuance of such orders by the Bank. The petitioner could have never sought release from services of the Corporation unless he was assured of the proper implementation of the award by the Bank. 8. As regards the second charge, it is submitted that the petitioner had only received 50% of the amount under orders of the Hon'ble High Court and not the entire amount of Rs. 36, 246, 34 as alleged in the charge-sheet. The question whether the petitioner could have legally got this amount had been answered in his favour by the Labour Court and was now the subject matter of writ petition No. 509/79. and the petitioner was legally entitled to receive the back wages if ordered by a competent Court. This however, did not mean that he was actually in employment during that period or had undertaken double employment. It is further submitted that it was nowhere the case of the Corporation that its work suffered in any manner because he was getting back wages from the Bank. The action of the Corporation tantamount to putting hinderence in the way of a citizen of seeking legal redress to a wrong done to him. It was further submitted that the action of the Corporation was devoid of all propriety and logic. What would have happened if ultimately it was held by the High Court that the petitioner was not entitled to receive any back wages and was directed to return the amount ? None of the regulations 22, 24, 27 and 28 apply in the present case and there is violation of any one of these regulations. 9. The Corporation in its reply stated that the petitioner perpetrated fraud on the Corporation and secured appointment as Clerk by order, dated May 19, 1973 for which the petitioner had made an application on November 23, 1972 (Annexure R-1). This appointment was secured by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore. it was void ab initio. The petitioner at the time of seeking service in the Corporation did not disclose that he was already employed with the Bank. This appointment was secured by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore. it was void ab initio. The petitioner at the time of seeking service in the Corporation did not disclose that he was already employed with the Bank. In the application the petitioner only disclosed that he had worked from August 19, 1970 to September 6, 1972 in the Bank It came to the notice of the Corporation in September 1979 only that the petitioner was duly appointed employee of the State Bink of Bikaner and Jaipur. 10. It has been further submitted in the reply that the mischief and fraudulent nature of the petitioner is apparent from the further fact that before the Industrial Court the petitioner had stated on oath that he was unemployed. Annexure R-2 has been submitted in this regard. It may be mentioned at this very stage that Annexure R-2 is a portion of statement of the petitioner and the only relevant portion in this regard is to the following effect : csjkstxkjh ds le; esa eSa t;iqj esa jgk] ml le; eSa csdk; FkkA It is difficult for me to understand as to what inference of fraud is being derived by the Corporation from the above statement of the petitioner. 11. The case of the Corporation further is that they felt embarrassed and offended by the curious behaviour of the petitioner that while he was in their employment he also obtained an order of re-instatement from the Industrial Court with full back wages by stating falsely that he was not employed anywhere. The petitioner cannot be allowed to serve at two places and in this regard he has violated regulation Nos. 24 and 27. It has been further alleged that in the above circumstances there was no option lest with the Corporation but to issue the charge-Sheet for violating the service conditions of the Corporation. The conduct of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct and such dishonest man, like the petitioner, was not expected to work in the better interest of the Corporation where huge financial stakes are involved. 12. It has been further stated in the reply by the Corporation that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity of hearing. The conduct of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct and such dishonest man, like the petitioner, was not expected to work in the better interest of the Corporation where huge financial stakes are involved. 12. It has been further stated in the reply by the Corporation that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity of hearing. His reply was taken and considered and after considering this reply and the record, the Managing Director of the Corporation most and painfully dismissed the petitioner from the services of the Corporation with effect from June 30, 1980 The dismissal order was just and valid and the Managing Director was competent to issue the same. 13. Mr. G.G. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Corporation stranevously contended that the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation is based on material on record and the same cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. G.G. Sharma in support of the above contention placed reliance in (I) State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 . (2) M/s. Parry and Co Ltd. v. P C Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Cal. & Ors: AIR 1970 SC 1334 , (3) Giridhari Mohapatra & Ors. v. Raghunath Jew & Ors : AIR 1975 Ors. 60, (4) Jasrai v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1977 Rajasthan 150. 14. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 15. Before dealing with this cast, I may also mention that Writ Petition No. 509/79 has also been decided today and in that case the Writ Petition filed by the Bank has been allowed and the Labour Court has been directed to decide the question of quantum of back wages afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence regarding gainful employment during the relevant period. 16. So far as the present case is concerned, I am clearly of the view that the action of the Corporation in dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly wrong, illegal and unjustified. 16. So far as the present case is concerned, I am clearly of the view that the action of the Corporation in dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly wrong, illegal and unjustified. The Corporation has unnecessarily made out a mountain out of a mole hill. The petitioner, as any other person, in the circumstances of this case was entitled to peruse his cause challenging his illegal termination by the Bank and claim for back wages. The petitioner was perusing his remedies in a perfectly legal and constitutional way and there hardly arises any question of practising any fraud or misrepresentation so far as the Corporation is concerned. From the facts mentioned above which are not in dispute. it is abundantly clear that the services of the petitioner were terminated from the Bank on September 6, 1972. The petitioner had applied for service in the Corporation by Annexure R-1, dated November 23, 1972. Against Column No. 5 of experience, the petitioner had not concealed anything but had clearly mentioned that he had temporarily worked in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, S.M.S. Highway Branch, Jaipur from August 19, 1970 to September 6, 1972. This application was submitted on November 23, 1972 when admittedly the petitioner was not in the employment of the Bank and the Corporation by Order, dated May 16, 1973 gave him employment as a Clerk. The petitioner joined duty on May 17, 1973. Learned counsel for the Corporation even wants to assert that on the day when the petitioner applied for employment in the Corporation, i.e., November 23, 1972, the petitioner committed a fraud as he was continuing in the service of the Bank as his order of termination was held illegal by the Industrial Tribunal in the award, dated July 21, 1977. The argument is totally fallacious and has no legs to stand. The petitioner could not have anticipated the fate of the reference made to the Industrial Court and how on earth the petitioner could have mentioned in his application, dated November 23, 1972 that he was continuing in the service of the Bank when his services had already been terminated on September 6, 1972. 17. It is also not understandable as to how the payment of full back wages or any pert of it from the Bank can be considered violation of any of the regulations of the Corporation. 17. It is also not understandable as to how the payment of full back wages or any pert of it from the Bank can be considered violation of any of the regulations of the Corporation. Admittedly there is no charge of any misconduct in the discharge of duties performed by the petitioner so far as the services in the Corporation are concerned. Right from May 17, 1973 when he joined the service in the Corporation till June 30, 1980, when he has been dismissed from service, he has not been given any charge-sheet regarding any misconduct in the performance of his duties in the Corporation. The petitioner has worked in the Corporation whole time and he has been paid for the work done by him in the Corporation. There is no case of the respondent Corporation that during this period, the petitioner in fact did actually work in the Bank. So far as the claim of the petitioner for back wages from the Bank is concerned, firstly the Corporation has no concern at all with it. secondly the claim for back wages itself was under dispute and even now the matter has been remanded back for final orders by the Labour Court, as ordered in Writ Petition No. 509/79. Merely because, the petitioner was making a claim for re-instalment with back wages from the Bank and in that litigation if the petitioner succeeded and allowed 50% of the amount under the orders of this Court, there hardly arises any question of dismissing him from service by the Corporation. It clearly smacks of malafide action on the part of the Corporation as alleged by the petitioner that the Managing Director of the Bank was one of the Directors of the Corporation also and the Corporation had been made a tool for putting pressure on the petitioner not to make his claim against the Bank. This Court cannot countenance such action taken by the Corporation. 18. It may also be mentioned that after the close of arguments in writ petition No. 509/79 Mr. D.K. Soral, counsel for the Bank, was asked whether he was prepared to take the petitioner in the Bank, but he informed on the next day the Bank was not prepared to take the petitioner in service. 18. It may also be mentioned that after the close of arguments in writ petition No. 509/79 Mr. D.K. Soral, counsel for the Bank, was asked whether he was prepared to take the petitioner in the Bank, but he informed on the next day the Bank was not prepared to take the petitioner in service. There is hardly any justification for seeking the petitioner both from the Corporation as well as the Bank with no fault on the part of the petitioner. 19. I do not want to discuss any authorities cited by Mr. G.G. Sharma as none of those cases are at all relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. If the petitioner remained gainfully employed for any period in the service of the Corporation, it is only the Bank who can raise a grievance that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages for that period, but so far as the Corporation is concerned it has not been put to any financial loss nor the petitioner has committed any act against the interest of the Corporation. 20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure 8, dated June 30, 1980 dismissing the petitioner from service, is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service from the back date with all benefits which the petitioner would have become entitled but for his wrongful dismissal. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this writ petition. *******