Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2359 (RAJ)

Ahsan Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

2007-12-10

P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is pending for admission since 1998 and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 22.10.1998, which is Annexure-10 in the compilation, passed by the disciplinary authority, be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the transfer order passed by the appellate authority may also be quashed and set aside by which the decision of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk vide order dated o 13.4.1980 and after rendering services for sometime in the Collectorate, the petitioner was declared surplus and' he was absorbed in the Department of Education i.e. in Government Secondary School, Chhan. The petitioner at the relevant time had put in about four years of service and thereafter, he proceeded on leave from 22.8.1984 till 7.9.1984. It is the case of the petitioner that he was 5 suffering from 'Huma-a-Sarsamiya', and in view of the same, he remained absent since 08.09.1984. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the service rules on the aforesaid ground of remaining unauthorizedly absent from the duty. The disciplinary authority, by the impugned order dated 22.10.1988, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the o petitioner had remained absent from the duty continuously from 8.9.1984. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was sick, he could not resume his duty for all these years and that initially he had submitted an application for leave. It is further submitted that before passing the impugned order of termination, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the absence period of the petitioner be treated as on leave without pay and he may be reinstated in the service. It is submitted that because of serious illness i.e. mental illness, the petitioner was prevented from resuming his duties and the department has power under the service rules to reinstate the petitioner in service and treating the absence period as on leave without pay. 4. Learned Dy. G.A., Mr. It is submitted that because of serious illness i.e. mental illness, the petitioner was prevented from resuming his duties and the department has power under the service rules to reinstate the petitioner in service and treating the absence period as on leave without pay. 4. Learned Dy. G.A., Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had remained absent without any valid reason for about four years and at that time he had hardly put in four years of service. It is pointed out that the petitioner had not pointed out any documentary evidence before the concerned authority showing that he could not resume his duty as he was not keeping good health. It is submitted that the petitioner had remained absent willfully from the duty without giving any prior information to the department and on that ground he was subjected to the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that even a letter was sent to the petitioner in this behalf, but nobody has accepted the said letter on behalf of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that even a public notice was also issued in the newspaper on 23.3.1986 in the Rajasthan Patrika, yet the petitioner did not respond to it, nor sent any explanation and ultimately, the order of termination was passed and the said order was also confirmed by the appellant authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 6. In this connection, it is required to be noted that the petitioner produced various medical certificates, which are finding place at Page 33 of the writ petition. After going through the said certificates, it is clear that the same are not reliable at all as different diseases are mentioned in such certificates and there is no reference of mental illness in such certificates produced by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority tried its best to inform the petitioner to remain present in the departmental enquiry and even newspaper intimation was also published in this behalf and ultimately, the impugned order of termination was passed against the petitioner. The facts of the case clearly suggest that the petitioner was absolutely casual in his approach. If an employee remains absent for a long time (for about 4 years in the instant case), it is difficult for the department to function properly. The facts of the case clearly suggest that the petitioner was absolutely casual in his approach. If an employee remains absent for a long time (for about 4 years in the instant case), it is difficult for the department to function properly. A Government servant is also required to serve with sincerity and while discharging his duties, no casual approach is required to be shown by the employee which is normally reflected in the public employment as in contrast to private employment. A Government servant is also required to be vigilant and punctual in the matter of attending his duties. A person in public employment is also required to serve with the same zeal and punctuality as the one who is serving in private employment. If a Government servant is indifferent in performance of his duties, the work of the department is bound to suffer. An employee cannot remain absent for such a long time, which is more than 4 years in the present case and thereafter as per his sweet will try to resume his duties. The court of law normally would not assist such an employee who has least respect towards his duties and towards his employer under whom he is serving. A person in public employment also gets salary from the public exchequer and is required to put his best while discharging his duties. In this case, even a newspaper intimation was published, yet the petitioner did not bother to remain present. It is also clear from the medical evidence that the petitioner has tried to change version about his illness from time to time. A person, who remained absent for about four years in a service, cannot claim reinstatement on the ground that the said absence period may be treated as leave without pay. Here the department initiated the enquiry against the petitioner on the ground of misconduct and willful absence for a long time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had acted i arbitrarily in passing the impugned order of termination. The disciplinary authority had tried its best to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but the petitioner himself did not avail the said opportunity. 7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notices discharged. The disciplinary authority had tried its best to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but the petitioner himself did not avail the said opportunity. 7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notices discharged. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******