Preetam Singh S/O Tikam Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5895 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 197/2021

1.      Preetam Singh S/o Tikam Singh Saini, R/o Pakka Bagh,
        Bachha Mandi, Bharatpur (Since Deceased Through His
        Legal Heir)
1/1.    Smt. Shakuntla Devi W/o Preetam Singh, Aged About 60
        Years, R/o Pakka Bagh, Bachha Mandi, Bharatpur.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary,
        Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Commissioner Agriculture, Agriculture Commissionerate,
        Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krashi Bhawan, Jaipur.
3.      Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Dholpur.
4.      Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment

26/10/2021

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner

(for short, 'the appellant') against the order dated 8.1.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed

by the appellant has been dismissed.

Facts of the case are that Preetam Singh, husband of

the appellant was working as Class-IV employee with the

respondents. Due to theft took place in the office of respondents,

FIR No.84/1989 was lodged for the offence under Sections 379

(2 of 5) [SAW-197/2021]

and 415 IPC, wherein husband of the appellant was arrested. On

that basis vide order dated 14.3.1989, he was suspended.

Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued to him. During the

pendency of the enquiry, he was reinstated vide order dated

23.5.1995. Vide order dated 13.6.1995, he was posted in the

office of Dy. Director Agriculture (Extension), Zila Parishad,

Nagaur. Pursuant thereto vide order dated 24.6.1995, he was

relieved from the office of Dy. Director Agriculture (Extension),

Dholpur to join his duties in Nagaur, but he did not join the duties

at the place of posting. On that basis, another charge sheet was

issued to him on 22.2.2018 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil

Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short,

the Rules of 1958') readwith R.S.R.-86. In his reply, husband of

the appellant admitted the charges levelled against him.

Opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him. After hearing

the husband of the appellant, he was dismissed from service vide

order dated 27.3.2018. Against the said order, he filed an appeal

under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and the appellate authority

vide his order dated 20.2.2019 dismissed the appeal.

Subsequently on 18.9.2020, Preetam Singh died, as such his wife

filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this

Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2021.

Hence, this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without

conducting an enquiry, the punishment order has been passed. He

further submits that admission of the charges by the appellant

was not with his free will, but under the misguidance of the higher

officers of being exonerated from the charges levelled against him,

therefore, he admitted the charges. He further submits that

(3 of 5) [SAW-197/2021]

husband of the appellant was due to retirement in the month of

April, 2018 and with malafide intention the charge sheet was

issued to him just before the retirement i.e in the month of

February, 2018 and within a month, the punishment order was

passed. He further submits that in the criminal case, the husband

of the appellant was acquitted, but he was not allowed to join on

the ground that another criminal case was pending against him.

Heard. Considered.

In the case of Aligarh Muslim University and Ors.

Versus Mansoor Ali Khan reported in 2001 (91) FLR 28 (SC), it

has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if a person is absent

beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be

granted, he should be treated to have resigned and ceased to be

in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an enquiry or

to give any notice as it would amount to empty formalities.

In the case of Mahabali Versus Central

Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (MANU/UP/2368/2005), it was

held that a Government servant has a right to abandon the service

any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation or alternatively,

not joining the duty and remaining absent for long. Absence from

duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is

for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily abandonment

of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an

end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the

employer or completing the requirement of holding the enquiry. It

was also held that in a case where the facts are undeniable and

not in dispute, it is not necessary at all to hold enquiry or give an

opportunity of hearing to the other party for the reason that if the

other party has no explanation to offer, holding enquiry would be a

(4 of 5) [SAW-197/2021]

futile exercise. It was further held that where a person has

voluntarily abandoned the service is a question of fact and can

also be determined by considering the surrounding circumstances.

There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was justified for

remaining absent for such a long period or he could take leave of

such a long period in law. Thus, presumption could have been

drawn by the Authority that he had abandoned the service and in

such a fact situation, there is no requirement of holding enquiry.

In the instant case, vide order dated 13.6.1995, the

husband of the appellant was posted in the office of Dy. Director

Agriculture (Extension), Zila Parishad, Nagaur. Pursuant thereto

vide order dated 24.6.1995, he was relieved from the office of Dy.

Director Agriculture (Extension), Dholpur to join his duties in

Nagaur, but he did not join the duties at the place of posting till

2018 and remained willful absent for a period of about 23 years.

On that basis, another charge sheet was issued to him on

22.2.2018 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 readwith Rule 86 of

the Rajasthan Service Rules.

So far as argument of learned counsel for the appellant

with regard to non conducting the departmental enquiry is

concerned, it is admitted fact that husband of the appellant was

issued a charge sheet on 22.2.2018 and in his reply he admitted

the charges levelled against him. Since he admitted the charges,

therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of

1958, principle of natural justice was followed and opportunity of

hearing was afforded to him and he was heard in person.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

petition noted that a government employee is required to remain

on duty and even if he has any difficulty, he must remain present

(5 of 5) [SAW-197/2021]

in the office and submit his representation for redressal of the

personal difficulty. It was also noted that under Rule 86 of the

Rajasthan Service Rules, a person who remains absent for more

than 5 years shall be deemed to have abandoned his service.

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince

us to take a different view than the view taken by the learned

Single Judge.

We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the

learned Single Judge in his order dated 8.1.2021.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this

appeal and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be

dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay

application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DK/87

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)