Rajasthan High Court
Sita Ram Yadav S/O Rameshwar Prasad ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 March, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:12115-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 316/2023
1. Sita Ram Yadav S/o Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali,
District Jaipur, (Rajasthan) (Deceased).
1/1. Bharti Yadav D/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur,
(Raj.)
1/2. Anita Yadav D/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur,
(Raj.)
1/3. Vijay Yadav S/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur,
(Raj.)
1/4. Amita Yadav D/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur,
(Raj.)
1/5. Lalita Devi W/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur,
(Raj.)
1/6. Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Kanshali Tehsil Kotputali,
District Jaipur, (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Animal Husbandry
Department, Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Director (Prakklan), Animal Husbandry
Department, Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote
For Respondent(s) :
[2024:RJ-JP:12115-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-316/2023]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
04/03/2024
1. Heard on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued, in extenso, to
assail the correctness and validity of the order dated 09.12.2022,
passed by learned Single Judge, mainly on the submission that
present being a case of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority
with the findings of the enquiry officer, as contained in the enquiry
report, the appellant was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of
hearing communicating the reasons for disagreement. Next
submission is that in the absence of there being a clear case
based on clinching evidence that it was a case of wilful absence,
extreme penalty of removal from service is not commensurate
with the gravity of misconduct. The appellant served for a long
period of more than 15 years in the service and only on one count
of he remaining absent for certain period, extreme penalty of
removal from service was imposed. He would submit that these
aspects were not properly appreciated by the learned Single
Judge.
3. We have gone through the records of the case and the
pleadings of the parties as also the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
4. In the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, there is specific
allegation that the appellant, without prior information, remained
absent willfully. The allegations are clearly of wilful absence from
[2024:RJ-JP:12115-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-316/2023]
duty. The period of absence is stated to be from 29.04.1999 to
29.09.1999, 13.10.1999 to 15.05.2001 and thereafter remaining
continuously absent from 16.07.2001. The gravamen of charge is
that without any application for grant of leave and without any
information, the act of remaining absent amounts to wilful
absence as per Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules. The appellant
was given due opportunity of hearing also. After having received
the reply, the enquiry officer was appointed. It is not the case of
the appellant that without any notice or knowledge to him or
without affording any opportunity of hearing, departmental
enquiry was conducted. In his reply submitted on 10.07.2003, the
appellant admitted the charges of wilful absence, though he
sought to submit explanation regarding the same as his illness,
illness of his parents and other family circumstances. In the reply,
he admitted all the charges and stated that whatever orders are
passed, he would accept the same. He clearly stated that he does
not wish to lead any evidence, nor does he want to inspect any
other record.
5. The enquiry officer held the charges proved and also
recorded that the employee failed to produce any medical
certificate or proof of his illness. The Disciplinary Authority
examined the records of the case. The appellant was afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing also, which is clear from
appellant's own letter dated 05.05.2003 (Annexure-9). Another
memo dated 21.06.2003 was also issued to the appellant, wherein
it was stated that on the basis of the enquiry report, it is proposed
to remove him from service. He was asked to submit his reply as
[2024:RJ-JP:12115-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-316/2023]
against the proposed punishment, which he submitted on
10.07.2003. After consideration of the material on record and
affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the
Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.08.2003, decided to
impose penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 16.07.2001.
6. It is, thus, clear that at every stage, the appellant was
afforded full opportunity of hearing, though he had admitted the
charges and expressed that he did not want to lead any defence
witness also.
7. In view of the above, it is clear that the period of
unauthorised absence was not only on more than one occasion,
but for long and longer period one after the other, where the
employee has been found guilty of having remained unathorizedly
absent from service for a long period from 13.10.1999 to
15.05.2001 in the second spell and thereafter again remained
unauthorisedly absent from 16.07.2001. The charge-sheet was
issued after almost one year of unauthorised absence. No
employer can be expected to continue such an employee in
service. It is not a case where penalty of dismissal has been
imposed on the appellant. The penalty of removal from service
does not entail future disqualification and, therefore, the penalty
cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate.
8. It is well settled that scope of judicial review against
quantum of punishment is extremely limited and the Court cannot
substitute its own assessment with regard to quantum of
punishment. Unless the punishment is found to be shockingly
[2024:RJ-JP:12115-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-316/2023]
disproportionate i.e. a very high degree of disproportionate
penalty, interference is not warranted.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that as
the appellant had served for more than 15 years, therefore,
penalty of compulsory retirement could be imposed, rather than
imposing a penalty of removal, is an aspect for consideration by
the Disciplinary Authority/ Appellate Authority, and not by this
Court.
10. We leave it open to the appellant to approach the concerned
authority. If any such application is made for altering the
punishment from removal from service to compulsory retirement,
it will be open for the authority to consider the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
12. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application, if
any, also stands dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR /40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
