1. Leave granted.
2. The order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 dated 27-4-1995 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court, Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the central social welfare board and he was working as welfare officer. He had been sent on deputation as secretary on 2.11.88 and he was finally absorbed by order dated 24.1.1991. Thus, he became an employee of the state board. While he was continuing as an employee of the state board, the appropriate authority found several derelictions on his part, including the dereliction of release of Rs. 8 lakhs in favour of his own brother for nonexistent projects. He was suspended from service in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and then a notice was issued to show cause as to why, for the charges against him, he should not be appropriately dealt with. The said respondent No. 1 filed his reply to the notice of show cause and finally, a regular inquiry was held in October, 1994. Two witnesses were examined before the inquiry officer and on the basis of their evidence, the inquiry officer recorded its findings that all the charges except charge No. 3, are proved as against the respondent No. 1. The disciplinary authority then issued a show cause notice to him on 25.3.1995 and then ultimately dismissed him from service by order dated 27.4.95. In the writ petition that was filed by the respondent, the learned single judge came to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and accordingly dismissed the writ petition., Respondent No. 1 carried the matter in appeal. The division bench of the High Court came to hold that since respondent No. 1 had been absorbed in the state board, which was amenable to the jurisdiction either of the state tribunal or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was not necessary to approach the central administrative tribunal, According to the division bench, the learned single judge should have examined the matter on merits.
Having held thus, the division bench not only set aside the order of the learned single judge but also the order of dismissal itself and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service. It is this order which is being challenged in this appeal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the division bench having reversed the conclusion of the single judge on the question of maintainability of writ petition, should have remitted the matter to the single judge for disposal on merits. According to the learned counsel, without any discussions about the merits of the matter, the division bench could not have directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1, whose services stood dismissed, after full-fledged inquiry and the guilt of the respondent having been established through materials on record. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 however contended that it was open for the division bench to adjudicate the legality of the order of dismissal and, therefore, this Court need not interfere with the said order.
4. Having examined the rival contentions and the judgment of the learned single judge as well as that of the division bench, we have no manner of doubt that the division bench erred in law in setting aside the order of dismissal without even examining the legality of the same. The ultimate conclusion of the division bench interfering with the order of dismissal is not based on any reasons and in that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the division bench of Rajasthan High Court and direct that the writ petition may be taken up for hearing by the learned single judge on merits, who shall examine the legality of the order of dismissal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.