ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who was working as an Inspector Land Records was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.09.2018 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter as “CCA Rules, 1958”) by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Authority). The charge sheet has been reproduced hereinbelow: ^^dk;kZy; ftyk dyDVj ¼Hkw-v-½ mn;iqj Øekad% ,Q&9@1¼ch½23@tkap@Hkw-v-@18@7961 fnukad% 17-09-2018 vkjksi i= Jh x.ks'k dqekj fot;oxÊ; rRdkyhu Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd vksx.kk rglhy >kMksy gky Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd dw.k rglhy ylkfM;k ftyk mn;iqj ds fo#) jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds rgr vkjksi i=& vkjksi la[;k 1 ;g fd vki Jh x.ks'kdqekj fot;oxÊ;] Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd vksx.kk rglhy >kMksy ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq, fnukad 06-03-2017 ls 19-03-2017 rd fpfdRlk vodk'k esa jgus dk çkFkZuk i= çLrqr dj fnukad 20-03-2017 dks rglhy dk;kZy; >kMksy esa mifLFkfr nhA rnqijkUr fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 22-03-2017 dk vkdfLed vodk'k çkFkZuk i= çsf"kr dj vodk'k Loh—r djk;s fcuk çLFkku dj fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 26-04-2018 rd dqy 402 fnuksa rd fcuk l{ke Loh—fr ds eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgsA mä vofèk ds nkSjku jkT; ljdkj ds egRoiw.kZ dk;Z tekcUnh lsxzhxs'ku ,oa jktLo uD'kksa esa rjehe dk;Z fd;k tk jgk FkkA mDr vof/k esa rglhynkj >kMksy }kjk vkidks mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ fy[kk x;kA fdUrq vki }kjk mä i=ksa dk dksbZ larks"kçn tokc ugha fn;s tkus ls rglhynkj >kMksy }kjk vkids fo:) dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;kA uksfVl dk vki }kjk dksbZ tokc çLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ls rglhynkj >kMksy us jktLFkku lsok fu;e ds fu;e 86 ds rgr vkidks uksfVl tkjh fd;kA rn~ mijkUr vki fnukad 27-04-2018 dks rglhy dk;kZy; >kMksy esa mifLFkr gq,A vr% vki fcuk l{ke Loh—fr@vodk'k Loh—r djk;s] fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 26-04-2018 rd ¼dqy 402 fnu½ LoSPNk ls jktdh; drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds vkjksih gSA tSlk fd vfHkdFku fooj.k i= 1 ij vafdr gSA lgh@& ¼fc".kq pj.k efYyd½ ftyk dyDVj ¼Hkw-v-½ mn;iqj^^ 2. On receipt of the aforestated charge-sheet the petitioner denied the allegations vide his reply dated 12.11.2018 and he also explained the reasons for his absence. The petitioner in his reply also stated that time and again he had applied for leave and extension thereof. On receipt of the aforestated charge-sheet the petitioner denied the allegations vide his reply dated 12.11.2018 and he also explained the reasons for his absence. The petitioner in his reply also stated that time and again he had applied for leave and extension thereof. The petitioner requested that since he remained on leave for reasons beyond his control, the leave may be sanctioned in his favour and disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge-sheet dated 17.09.2018 may be dropped. 3. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving reply from the petitioner decided to conduct an enquiry against him and the SDO, Jhadol was appointed as an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. 4. The Inquiry Officer vide its notice dated 27.12.2018 called upon the petitioner to join and participate in the departmental enquiry in person, while submitting his explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner after receiving the notice dated 27.12.2018 submitted a reply to the Inquiry Officer reiterating the reasons for his absence as mentioned in his reply dated 12.11.2018. 5. The Departmental Representative also submitted his response before Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 08.01.2019 mentioning therein, the details regarding the intimation and the request submitted by the petitioner for granting leave time and again. The Departmental Representative in his response/reply also stated that the case for regularisation of 402 days leave (from 21.03.2017 to 26.04.2018) taken by the petitioner without permission has already been forwarded to the office of District Collector, Udaipur, therefore, if the period of absence of the petitioner is regularised by sanctioning/regularising the same, the Departmental Representative does not have any objection. 6. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his inquiry report dated 18.01.2019 to the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. 7. The inquiry report was thereupon supplied to the petitioner and his explanation was called. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.03.2019, reiterating the facts already averred by the petitioner in his previously submitted replies. 8. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter, vide order dated 12.09.2019 imposed the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 12.09.2019 submitted an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1958, before the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No. 2. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 08.12.2020. 10. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 12.09.2019 submitted an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1958, before the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No. 2. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 08.12.2020. 10. The petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition has challenged the order of punishment dated 12.09.2019 and the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken this Court through the records including the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner due to some genuine, compelling reasons remained absent from service however, on each occasion he had submitted proper application to the Department requesting for grant of leave. It was urged that though in the charge-sheet, it has been stated that the show-cause notices dated 03.10.2017 and 14.02.2018 were issued against the petitioner asking him to join the duties however, no such notices were ever received by him. On the contrary, the petitioner on receiving notice dated 12.04.2018 under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 had immediately reported on duty with effect from 27.04.2018. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Departmental Representative in his reply clearly stated 127 privilege leaves and 126 medical leaves were already available in the leave account of the petitioner and if such leave is sanctioned by the competent authority he has no objection against the same. Thus, the order of removal from service ought not to have been passed against the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that the procedure provided under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 has not been followed in the present case. The Inquiry Officer has proceeded to submit his inquiry report merely on the basis of explanation submitted by both the sides. The undisputed documents annexed with the reply have neither been discussed nor considered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the harshest punishment upon the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel submitted that even the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority in a pre-determined manner without independently applying its mind. 15. 14. Learned counsel submitted that even the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority in a pre-determined manner without independently applying its mind. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in conformity with the provisions contained in the CCA Rules, 1958. The petitioner has been found guilty of remaining absent from duties without authority for the period between 21.03.2017 to 26.04.2018 by the Inquiry Officer, on appreciation of material produced before it by the parties. Learned counsel submitted that Inquiry Officer rightly held the petitioner guilty. The Disciplinary Authority looking to the misconduct of the petitioner committed no error in imposing the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner which has rightly been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. It is a settled law that if an allegation of unauthorized absent from duty is levelled against an employee, and departmental proceedings are initiated, the Disciplinary Authority is required to prove the charge and show that absence is wilful. 18. In the present case, this Court finds that the charge against the petitioner is of remaining absent from duties for the period between 21.04.2017 to 26.04.2018. In the charge-sheet, it is stated that show-cause notices dated 03.10.2017 and 14.02.2018 were issued to the petitioner asking him to join the duties. However, there is nothing on record to indicate as to how and when they were served upon the petitioner. In the absence of any proof of aforesaid notices being served upon the petitioner, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner that he has never been served with show cause notices dated 03.10.2017 and 14.02.2018. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner reported to the duties immediately after the issuance of notice under the Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which contemplates that if a government servant remains wilfully absent for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absent is proved against him, he may be removed from service, was served upon the petitioner. 19. 19. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner attached various documents with his reply to the Inquiry Officer justifying his absence from duties. The Departmental Representative in his reply before Inquiry Officer stated that as per service records of the petitioner 127 privilege leaves and 126 medical leaves were available to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was thus expected to discuss the material produced before it by both the parties before holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the charge against the petitioner has been proved by the Inquiry Officer in a mechanical manner without analysing the material produced before it. Unfortunately, the Disciplinary Authority so also the Appellate Authority have also failed to appreciate the same and have blindly accepted the report of Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty. 21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Inquiry report dated 18.01.2019 and the impugned orders of removal from service dated 12.09.2019 and 08.12.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, affirmed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the services forthwith with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 22. No order as to costs.