1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6411/2009 Sushil Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 8.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vijay Jain, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner faced the departmental inquiry for the charge of remaining absent from duty without prior sanction of leave for 683 days. The absence from the duty is from period 3.3.2002 to 24.2.2005. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner suffered injury after 2.5.2001 when he was transferred to Hanumangarh and, therefore, he should have been given some protection. It is also submitted that the departmental proceedings vitiated as the petitioner approached the permanent Lok Adalat for execution of the order, which was passed in his favour and, therefore, the employer annoyed and charge has been framed against the petitioner. It is submitted that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner's order of punishment was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.1.2009. It is submitted that the department initiated inquiry after delay and 2 the same was initiated only because of malice. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the charges levelled against the petitioner as well as the reasons given in the impugned order dated 26.2.2007 and the appellate order dated 16.1.2009. It appears that several notices were sent to the petitioner so that he may present his case before the departmental authorities and registered notice was also sent to him and even the notice was published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika. The petitioner did not choose to contest the departmental inquiry and when he faced with the order of removal from service, he preferred appeal. It appears from the order passed by the authority as well as by the appellate authority that all the facts have been considered and allegation of malafide have no basis where the petitioner himself admitted his absence from the duty for certain days. The petitioner, therefore, rightly held guilty by the department and, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed having no merit. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-