Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2296 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-27

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- "1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2008, punishment order dated 17.11.2011 and appellate order dated 11.04.2014 and review order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure-2, 10, 12 and 14) and the respondent be directed to reinstated the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and respondents may further directed to released the arrears to petitioner along with interest of 18%. 2. Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside. 3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Mr. Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been a long time employee of the respondents on the post of Constable, as he joined on 21.03.1983 and remained in service until his compulsory retirement vide order dated 17.11.2011. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been charged with willful absence on four counts i.e. firstly absence of five working days, secondly, absence of six working days, thirdly, absence of twenty working days and lastly, absence of thirty working days. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that each time the petitioner had applied for the leave and it was for the respondents to sanction the same, but his leave was not denied. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, reported as 2012 (3) S.C.C. 178 . 3. The relevant paragraphs i.e. Para Nos. 18 & 19 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows :- "18. Absence from duty without application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always means willful. Union of India and another, reported as 2012 (3) S.C.C. 178 . 3. The relevant paragraphs i.e. Para Nos. 18 & 19 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows :- "18. Absence from duty without application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always means willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence, in question was not willful absence or unauthorized absence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed by saying that already a lenient view has been taken by the respondents and the petitioner looking into his prolonged services has been given compulsory retirement, which shall entitle him for all benefits arising out of the prolonged services. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 is in accordance with law and the charge-sheet of absence of five days, six days, twenty-days and thirty days respectively, which are on four separate charges, have been very well proved. 7. The precedent law cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) shall not apply because it is an admitted position that the leaves one after another in the same year, 2008 were not sanctioned by the respondents and the petitioner, being a member of the Disciplined Uniform Forced could not have absented without leave being sanctioned and that too on four different occasions within a short span of six months. Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement is justifiable. 8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.