ORDER : 1. Three separate writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of dismissal from service after holding disciplinary enquiry u/R.16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1958 ("Rules,1958") & the departmental appeal which he preferred that too has been dismissed upholding penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon the petitioner delinquent. 2. Three separate writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of dismissal from service after holding disciplinary enquiry u/R.16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1958 ("Rules,1958") & the departmental appeal which he preferred that too has been dismissed upholding penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon the petitioner delinquent. 2. The petitioner delinquent joined service in the cadre of Class-IV and while in service for the alleged various delinquency which he committed in discharge of his duties three separate charge sheets were served upon him and primarily the allegation was of willful absence from duty and it will be relevant to quote the allegation levelled against him on the basis of which disciplinary enquiry was conducted under the Rules,1958, which reads as under :- ^^1 & vki Jh iIiw yky] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj esa inLFkkfir jgrs gq, fuEufyf[kr vof/k esa fcuk fdlh lwpuk ,ao vodk'k Lohd`fr ds jktdh; lsok ls vuqifLFkr jgsA 1 & 03-10-2009 ls 03-03-2010 rd 2 & 20-05-2010 ls 25-05-2010 rd 3 & 07-06-2010 ls 11-06-2010 rd vkidks fnuakd 03-10-2009 ls 03-03-2010 rd dh vof/k esa fcuk lwpuk@vodk'k Lohd`fr ds dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkfr ds dze esa Kkiu dzekad 1880 fnuakd 13-05-2010 ,oa dzekad 2281 fnuakd 10-06-2010 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s ijUrq vkius okafNr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;kA rRi'pkr~ Kkiu dzekad 26-06-2010 }kjk vkidks vafre volj nsrs gq, rhu fnol ds Hkhrj viuk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s fdUrq mi;qZDr funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, vkius okafNr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k ftlls tkfgj gS fd xSjgktjh dk dksbZ Hkh equkflc dkj.k ugh FkkA vki Jh iIiw yky] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB dk mijksDr yEch vof/k rd fcuk dkj.k o lwpuk ds jktdh; lsok ls vuqifLFkr jguk] tku cw>dj vuqifLFkr jgus dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA ,oa jktdh; lsok ds izfr v:fp] ?kksj vuq'kklughurk gksuk n'kkZrk gS tks xaHkhj nqjkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA tks fu;e 16 jkt0 flfoy lsok oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy fu;e] 1958 lifBr fu;e 29 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; LVkQ lfoZlst :Yl] 2002 ds vUrxZr n.M+uh; gSA 2 & vkjksi la0 1 vki Jh iIiwyky prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj fcuk vodk'k izkFkZuk i= fn, ,oa iwoZ esa vodk'k Lohd`r djk, fcuk fnuakd 27-07- 2005 ls 11 -02-2006 rd vius dk;Z ls LosPNkiwoZd vuqifLFkr jgs vkidk ;g d`R; nqjkpj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA vkjksi la0 2 vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj dks U;k;ky;kf/kdkjh] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj us Kkiu fnuakd 06-08-2005 ds }kjk fnuakd 08-08-2005 ls dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksus ds funsZ'k fn, x, Fks] ijUrq vki Jh iIiwyky us mDr funsZ'kksa dh tkucw>dj ikyuk ugha dh ,oa mDr Kkiu izkfIr ds ckotwn Hkh vius dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gq,A vkidk mDr d`R; mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh voKk o vuq'kklughurk ds nqjkpj.k dk ?kksrd gSA vkjksi la0 3 vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj dks jftLV~kj iz'kklu] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj us i= dzekad 5244 fnuakd 28-10-2005 ,oa dzekad 5361 fnuakd 16-11-2005 dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djrs gq, funsZ'k fn, Fks fd vki vius dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksos ijUrq vkius u rks budk tokc fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa fn;k ,oa u gh vki vius dŸkZO; ij mifLFkr gq,A vkidk mDr d`R; mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh voKk o vuq'kklughurk ds nqjkpj.k dk ?kksrd gSA vkjksi la0 4 vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj dks mi&jftLV~kj iz'kklu] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj us i= dzeakd 2500 fnuakd 16-06-2004] 4229 fnuakd 05-10-2004] 4973 fnuakd 06-12-2004 }kjk psrkofu;ka nh Fkh fd Hkfo"; esa vki vodk'k Lohd`r djkdj gh miHkksx djsxsa o vodk'k gsrq le; ij dk;kZy; dks lwfpr djsaxsaA blds vfrfjDr vkns'k dz0 227 fnuakd 19-07-2005 }kjk vkidksa vodk'k Lohd`fr ds le; lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk fd Hkfo"; esa vki vodk'k Lohd`r djkdj gh vodk'k dk miHkksx djsaxs o vodk'k gsrq le; ij dk;kZy; dks lwfpr djsaxsA ;fn vkius fcuk vodk'k Lohd`fr ds vodk'k dk miHkksx fd;k rks vkids fo:) dBksj vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA ijUrq mDr psrkofu;ksa ds ckotwn Hkh vkius fcuk vodk'k izkFkZuk i= fn, ,oa fcuk iwoZ Lohd`fr ds fnuakd 27-07- 2005 ls 11 -02-2006 rd vodk'k ij izLFkku djus ds d`R; dh iqujko`fr dhA vkidk mDr d`R; mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh voKk o vuq'kklughurk ds nqjkpj.k dk ?kksrd gS ,oa fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`fr ds dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds vknh gSA vkjksi la0 5 vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj fnuakd 07-06-2006 ls 24-07-2006 rd fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh dh fcuk vuqefr LosPNk ls dRrZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSA bl izdkj ls vkius vkns'kksa dh voKk dj vuq'kklughurk iznf'kZr dh gSA tks fd ,d xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA 3 & vki Jh iIiwyky] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj fcuk izkFkZuk i= fn, ,oa fcuk iwoZ esa vodk'k Lohd`r djk,] fnuakd 03-10- 2006 ls 15 -10-2006 rd vuqifLFkr jgs gSA rnqijkUr vki fnuakd 17-10-2006 ls fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k Lohd`r djk, LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA vkidk ;g d`R; jktLFkku lsok fu;e 1951 ds fu;e 86 ds foijhr gSA vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj dks i=kad 4708 fnuakd 15-11-2006 rFkk 4993 fnuakd 30-11-2006 }kjk rqjUr dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus ds funsZ'k fn, x, gSA ijUrq vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0 us mDr funsZ'kksa dh tkucw>dj ikyuk ugha dh] u gh dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gq, ,oa u gh vkius dksbZ vodk'k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;kA vkidk ;g d`R; LosPNkiw.kZ vuqifLFkfr dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA bl izdkj vki Jh iIiwyky] p0Js0d0] vknru LosPNk ls ckj ckj dRrZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSA vkidk d`R; tkucw>dj lsok ls vuqifLFkfr] voKk o vuq'kklughurk esa vkrk gS tks ,d xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA^^ 3. After the charge-sheet was served he was called upon to submit his response and thereafter the Enquiry Officer was appointed who after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing prescribed under the Rules, 1958 found the charges proved against him in reference to which three separate departmental enquiries were initiated against him. After enquiry report being submitted, he was called for to submit explanation and after affording reasonable opportunity confirmed the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the charge proved against him & looking to gravity of the charge levelled & found proved against him, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of dismissal from service, separate departmental appeals were preferred by the petitioner delinquent and the appellate authority revisited the record of enquiry & also what being observed by the Disciplinary Authority in its order inflicting penalty of dismissal from service and after taking note of overall view of the matter & the fact that on three different occasions there was allegation of willful absence from duty, though explanation came forward from the delinquent petitioner, confirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority & upheld the order inflicting penalty of dismissal from service which is subject matter of challenge in the instant proceedings. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner delinquent that the procedure prescribed under the Scheme of Rules, 1958 has not been followed or there is denial of principles of natural justice which vitiates the enquiry initiated/held against him. 6. Sh. Rajeev Surana Adv., appearing for petitioner submits that the reply furnished by the petitioner after the report of enquiry was served, was not taken note of either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority in the departmental appeal preferred by him & further submits that the charge levelled against him in three separate charge-sheet if collectively taken together at its face value & considered by this Court at least the punishment inflicted upon him of dismissal from service may not commensurate and is shockingly disproportionate with the charge levelled against him & at least to that extent the order inflicting penalty of dismissal from service requires interference by this Court. 7. We have heard counsel for petitioner & gone through the record placed before us. 7. We have heard counsel for petitioner & gone through the record placed before us. In three separate charge-sheets served upon the petitioner delinquent the Enquiry Officer has afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing at all the stages & the charge has been found proved against him after following the procedure prescribed under the Scheme of Rules, 1958 and the explanation which he intended to furnish even during the course of enquiry was ill-founded and no credence could be attached in support of his defence that his willful absence from duty was on account of some unavoidable circumstances and in absence of there being any tangible evidence placed on record by the petitioner delinquent the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against him which was revisited/re-looked by the Disciplinary Authority and after affording opportunity of hearing & taking note of gravity of misconduct levelled against him that he proceeded on leave without prior sanction and the fact that his willful absence from duty is not for a couple of days but months together from 2005 to 2010 on various occasions that in itself indicates about his insubordination & also taking note of the manner in which he discharged his duties, finally the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the charge proved against him inflicting penalty of dismissal from service which has been further looked into by the Appellate Authority who is none other than the Brother Judge of this Court and after reasonable opportunity being afforded nothing revealed to disturb the finding recorded at two stages i.e. Enquiry Officer & Disciplinary Authority which may enable the Appellate Authority to take a different view than what being expressed in confirming the finding of inflicting penalty of dismissal from service. 8. After hearing counsel for petitioner we do not find any error in the procedure being followed which either way may affect rights of the petitioner delinquent or there being denial of principles of natural justice which is otherwise sine qua non as contemplated under the Scheme of Rules, 1958. 9. 8. After hearing counsel for petitioner we do not find any error in the procedure being followed which either way may affect rights of the petitioner delinquent or there being denial of principles of natural justice which is otherwise sine qua non as contemplated under the Scheme of Rules, 1958. 9. As regards the submission made in regard to the reply not being considered in our considered view is of no substance for the reason that adequate opportunity of hearing has been afforded at all the stages and even before us no reasonable justification has been tendered by the petitioner delinquent to justify that denial of opportunity as prayed in any manner has jeopardized his right of fair opportunity of hearing and in our considered view after the opportunity being afforded as being contemplated under the scheme of Rules,1958 mere reference of reply which as alleged remain unnoticed is not going to cause any injustice to the petitioner. 10. At the same time the further submission made that the punishment of dismissal from service may not commensurate with the charge if taken at its face value, is of no substance for the reason that the petitioner while serving in the cadre of class-IV, the allegation was that he proceeded on leave without prior sanction on various occasions from 2005 to 2010 which is not for days but for months together and he maintained this consistency of proceeding on leave without prior sanction, certainly deserves no sympathy/indulgence prayed for at the same time we are of the view that looking to his conduct which has been noticed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well the penalty of dismissal from service certainly commensurate with the charge levelled & found proved against him and after hearing counsel for petitioner we find no substance in either of the writ petition. 11. Consequently, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.