CW 640/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.640/06 Shri Gopal Sharma Versus RSRTC & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 18/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, for petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite permission sought by the respondents Corporation was declined seeking approval of their action inflicting penalty upon him vide order dt.25th October, 2005, still he has not been reinstated in service. Respondent Corporation has also preferred CW No.442/06 which was dismissed by this court on 17th December, 2008. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the Tribunal has declined to approve action of the respondents inflicting penalty of removal from service - as a consequence thereof respondents are under an obligation to reinstate the petitioner in service and the order inflicting CW 640/06 [2] penalty of removal from service becomes void and inoperative. In support of his contention, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of apex court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma [(2002) 2 SCC-244]. Counsel for respondents submits that even if writ petition has been dismissed still if order has not been complied with, still the petitioner can make complaint u/s.33A of the Act, 1947. Apex court in judgment [supra] had an occasion to consider about the effect of order of discharge or dismissal if approval of the said order is not granted by the Tribunal and observed that if action of the employer is not approved by the Tribunal under the provisions of Sec.33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 it makes their order to be void and inoperative and it will be deemed that the order of removal from service has never been passed – relevant Para 14 whereof is reproduced as under: “Where an application is made under Section 33(2)(b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; CW 640/06 [3] whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not, etc. If the authority refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if order of discharge or dismissal never had been passed. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33 (2)(b)dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said provision. In other words, this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval. If approval is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for his reinstatement.” In view of judgment [supra], writ petition stands allowed. The order of dismissal from service dt.14th October, 1997 becomes void and inoperative and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service, entitling him all the benefits available. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA640CW06 18-12.doc