ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers: “(1) Impugned order dated 4.5.2000 issued by the Executive Engineer PHED, Jodhpur and order dated 15.09.03 issued by AEN may kindly be quashed and set aside, as if the orders were never passed against the petitioner, with all consequential benefits and reliefs. (2) Any other writ, order or direction which Your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. (3) The cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner joined the services as Class IV employee in pursuance of the order dated 29.10.1978 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED Circle, Jodhpur. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Helper (Regular) under City Water Distribution Scheme, Jodhpur vide order dated 24.09.1979. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 04.05.2000 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Jodhpur invoking Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The reason assigned for such termination was willful long absence of the petitioner from duty. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 is not applicable, as the respondents had failed to initiate the departmental proceedings under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against the petitioner, and unless that was done, removal from service on account of willful absence, was not possible. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that absence for more than five years, at most, could have warranted invocation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 86 of the Rules of 1951. But in this case, admittedly, the absence was not of five complete years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that there was willful long absence, and thus, the order dated 04.05.2000 was perfectly legal, as virtually the petitioner had abandoned his services. 6. However, in the reply of the respondents, in para 5, it has been admitted by the respondents that the termination was under Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 and the period of willful absence of the petitioner, as per the press note of the respondents, was from 16.07.1998 to the date of removal from service. 6. However, in the reply of the respondents, in para 5, it has been admitted by the respondents that the termination was under Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 and the period of willful absence of the petitioner, as per the press note of the respondents, was from 16.07.1998 to the date of removal from service. However, it is not disputed by the respondents that the regular departmental proceedings was not held against the petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 envisages that the respondents can initiate the regular departmental proceedings under the CCA Rules against the government servant, who willfully remained absent from duty for the period exceeding one month, and thereafter, if such absence is proved, then he can be removed from service. 8. Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 is quoted below for ready reference: “Rule 86. Absence after expiry of leave:- (1).............. (2).............. (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 willfully 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.” 9. The statutory requirement of holding the departmental proceedings cannot be done away with, simply because the petitioner remained absent from duty for a long period of time. In fact, it is the carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents that a person was willfully absent for more than one month, for which they should have initiated regular departmental proceedings and if the absence was found to be willful and without justifiable reason, the respondents ought to have passed the order of removal from service, in accordance with Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951. 10. The failure on the part of the respondents is directly beneficial to the petitioner, as in the regime of the rule of law, no authority can be permitted to deviate from the statutory requirements calling for prejudicial action against the employee, even when the employee may admittedly be at fault. 11. 10. The failure on the part of the respondents is directly beneficial to the petitioner, as in the regime of the rule of law, no authority can be permitted to deviate from the statutory requirements calling for prejudicial action against the employee, even when the employee may admittedly be at fault. 11. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 04.05.2000 passed by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Jodhpur and order dated 15.09.2003 passed by the Assistant Engineer are quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to take the petitioner back in service. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period, for which the petitioner has not discharged the services. It is further made clear that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner all notional benefits, except for the back wages. Needless to say, the respondents shall be free to hold the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and follow the procedure laid down in Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951, if the respondents require to remove the petitioner from service.