JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner - Mohd. Hanif was appointed as LDC in Collectorate, Dungarpur on 21/5/1975 and after sanction of leave of 117 days for the period 21/6/1982 to 15/10/1982 visited Kuwait and, thereafter, did not report for duty for long period of four years approximately and, therefore, the respondent District Collector Dungarpur passed an order dated 23/1/1984, which is impugned in the writ petition, invoking Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1986 that on account of absence without leave for long period, the petitioner would be deemed to have resigned from service and, therefore, he was relieved from the Government service on 16/10/1983. Before passing of the said order, a notice was duly SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. published in the newspaper on 12/12/1983 mentioned in the impugned order itself. 2. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 21/1/1984 (Annex.15-A) may be declared to be illegal and may be quashed with all consequential relief which the petitioner may be entitled consequent thereto. (b) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may do complete and effectual justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be made." 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on 17/11/2005 even before the reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent State and, therefore, upon special appeal being filed against the said order of learned Single Judge dated 17/11/2005, the said special appeal - SAW No. 90/2006 was allowed by the Division Bench on 13/3/2012 and the matter was remanded back to the Single Bench. 4. The respondent State thereafter filed reply to the writ petition and have contested the writ petition. The stand taken by the respondent State in its reply is that the leave was sanctioned for a period of 4 months approximately and the petitioner overstayed in Kuwait for about four years and when he reported back on duty on 16/4/1988, since he has already been removed from service under SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. Rule 86 of the RSR after publication of newspaper, therefore, he cannot resume his duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hanif v. State & ors. Rule 86 of the RSR after publication of newspaper, therefore, he cannot resume his duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Chundawat submitted that without holding proper inquiry, the removal of petitioner from service is illegal and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated back in service and admittedly since no inquiry has been held under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Servcies (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, the impugned order Annex.15A dated 23/1/1984 deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide Annex.16 dated 14/8/1989 and the review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules to the Governor was also rejected on 27/5/1991 (Annex.18) and, therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions. (i) Jai Shanker v. State of Raj. - AIR 1966 SC 492 (ii) L.Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & Anr. - AIR 1982 SC 854 (iii) Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar - AIR 1971 SC 1409 . 7. On the other hand, Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondent Department supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner concealed the SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. material facts from this Court and from the respondent. He submitted that the petitioner overstayed in Kuwait for about four years and he must have worked there for some organisation but he has not disclosed this information to the respondent and to this Court and the reason assigned by him for the prolonged stay, the alleged sickness, is not supported by any medical evidence and Rule 86 of the RSR permits removal from service without holding any inquiry in such cases of overstay without leave. 8. I have heard the learned counsels at some length and perused the record. 9. The relevant Rule 86 of RSR is quoted below for ready reference:- "86. 8. I have heard the learned counsels at some length and perused the record. 9. The relevant Rule 86 of RSR is quoted below for ready reference:- "86. Absence after expiry of leave--(1) A Government servant who is absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority shall be treated to have remained willfully absent from duty; and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extraordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. (2) (a) A Government servant who remains absent from duty after the expiry of the sanctioned leave or after communication of refusal of extension of leave is not entitled to any pay and allowance for the period of such SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. absence and the period of such absence shall be commuted into extra ordinary leave unless on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the period of absence is regularised by grant of leave due by the authority to grant leave. (b) willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rules ( 1) and (2) above the disciplinary authority may initiate departmental proceedings under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against a Government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of willful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. (4). Unless the State Government, in view of the special circumstances of the case, determines otherwise a State Government employee who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, whether with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from service. Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to the employee before the provisions of this sub-rule are invoked." 10. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and there is no need of holding any inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in the matter. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and there is no need of holding any inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in the matter. The period of absence without leave is not only long as SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. four years but no proper reason has been assigned by the petitioner for his overstay. The facts about his actual purpose of stay in Kuwait has not been disclosed either to the respondent or to this Court and despite query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was unable to give any concrete answer to this query. Therefore, the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court as well as from the respondent. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the sickness claimed as the reason of his overstay for a period of 4 years is not supported by any medical evidence whatsoever & prima facie appears to be false and, therefore, apparently the petitioner is trying to tell lies and wanted to allow him to resume his duties after a removal order was passed invoking Rule 86 of the RSR Rules. The respondents have not alleged against the petitioner that he is guilty of any misconduct so as to hold any inquiry in the matter. Rule 86 simply allows the State to deem it as resignation on the part of a Government Servant, if he does not report for duty beyond the period of sanctioned leave. Since controverting & rebuttal material was not placed before the respondents, therefore, invoking Rule 86, in these circumstances, was appropriate as Rule 86 requires the Govt. Servant to furnish satisfactory reasons for his absence and the impugned order is found to be unassailable and was rightly upheld by the appellate authority as well as reviewing authority under the CCA Rules. This Court does not find any breach of principles of natural justice in the present case and the impugned order cannot be said to be void even in the absence of inquiry held under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, which is not the condition precedent for invoking Rule 86 of the RSR. SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. 11. SBCWP No.5283/91 - Mohd. Hanif v. State & ors. 11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts & relief was granted due to breach of principles of natural justice, which is not the case here. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******