Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 33 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar Tomar v. State of Rajasthan

2003-01-09

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was initially appointed in the Irrigation Department on 20.6.1959. While working as Assistant Engineer, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet u/R. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, vide memorandum dated 11.3.1986. Main allegation against the petitioner has been that he remained absent from duty s without sanction of leave. 2. After holding a departmental inquiry, on the charges having been proved, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 24.11.1990. The above order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court. The SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10 280/1991, as filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by this Court vide mainly on the ground of non-supply of inquiry report. The order dated 24.11.1990 - order dated 19.8.1991 was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents were given liberty to pass fresh orders of punishment after 15 supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and also giving him an opportunity of hearing. 3. After decision of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner was further given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter a fresh order of removal was passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.5.1993, 20 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. This Court, while issuing notices to the respondents, on 30.8.1993 passed by the following order : "The only point for consideration is with regard to quantum of punishment, prima facie, the punishment of removal from service ignoring the fact that the petitioner had rendered 34 years service, appears to be unreasonable. Issue notice to the respondents on the limited question of quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. Rule is made returnable in four weeks. Notices be given dasti. A copy of this order shall be served on the respondent along with the notice." 5. Mr. J.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that there have been no adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner except for the charges, levelled in the present charge sheet, issued on 11.3.1986. A copy of this order shall be served on the respondent along with the notice." 5. Mr. J.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that there have been no adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner except for the charges, levelled in the present charge sheet, issued on 11.3.1986. It has further been submitted that due to unfortunate circumstances, the petitioner could not attend his duties and the whole period of absence had duly been explained by the petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet. Mr. Singh also submitted that a very harsh punishment of removal has been imposed upon the petitioner in the present case. 6. Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that due to long absence of petitioner from service, without sanction of leave, no leniency can be shown towards the petitioner and the punishment, imposed on the petitioner, is just and proper. Mr. Bhandari also submitted that the petitioner was only avoiding to join the place of transfer and remained absent for about two years, which further that amounts to a serious misconduct. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 8. There is an allegation of absence from duty w.e.f. 1.8.1984 in the charge sheet. In reply to the charge sheet, the petitioner has submitted that he applied for casual leave for two days, i.e. 1.8.1984 and 2.8.1984 on the ground of illness of his son and also sought permission to leave the headquarters. Submission of application for casual leave has not been denied so far. However, it has been submitted that the leave was not sanctioned. Thereafter, it has been submitted by the petitioner that on 2.8.1984 petitioner himself fell ill and was suffering from fever and dysentery for a long time till 17.3.1985. He had informed the authorities concerned in regard to his illness from time to time. Even thereafter as the misfortune will have it, the petitioner met with an accident on 18.3.1985 and suffered serious injuries on his right leg and hand and had to remain under medical treatment till 22.7.1986. 9. He had informed the authorities concerned in regard to his illness from time to time. Even thereafter as the misfortune will have it, the petitioner met with an accident on 18.3.1985 and suffered serious injuries on his right leg and hand and had to remain under medical treatment till 22.7.1986. 9. The disciplinary authority, while passing the impugned punishment order, was mainly influenced by the presumption that the petitioner was avoiding to join the place of transfer and remained absent from duty without sanction of leave only for that purpose. However, in the charge sheet, the allegation of disobedience has not been levelled against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has explained his absence from duty from 1.8.1984 to 22.7.1986, however, the only charge which could be made out against the petitioner is that the leave, applied by him during the above period, was never sanctioned by the competent authority. In peculiar facts of this case and the petitioner not being able to join his duties due to circumstances beyond his control, it was expected from the authorities concerned also to give him an opportunity to join his duties after getting out of his illness and pass appropriate orders on the leave applications. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner had put more than 34 years of service and nothing adverse has been placed on record or even pleaded on behalf of the respondents in regard to service record of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents also could not allege anything in this regard, more so, when the show cause notices had been issued by this Court way back in the year 1993 on this limited issue only. The punishment of removal from service appears to be shockingly disproportionate, washing out three decades of unblemished s service. 11. After having carefully considered the entire facts and circumstances to of the present case, looking to the nature of allegations, made and long unblemished tenure of service of the petitioner, the ends of justice will meet if the punishment of removal imposed on him. is reduced into that of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension. 12. 11. After having carefully considered the entire facts and circumstances to of the present case, looking to the nature of allegations, made and long unblemished tenure of service of the petitioner, the ends of justice will meet if the punishment of removal imposed on him. is reduced into that of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed The impugned order dated 31.5.1993 is modified to the extent that the punishment of removal is converted into the punishment of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension from the date of passing of the above order dated 31.5.1993 In the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to make the payment of consequential 20 benefits, in view of the modification of punishment order, to the petitioner within three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Partly Allowed As Above. *******