SBCWP No.2542/2004. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2452/2004. Ramanand Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date of Judgment : September 22, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri D.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/6/1985 by which he was awarded penalty of censure. Petitioner was served with notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "CCA Rules") on 22/1/1985 on the ground that he was transferred vide order dated 9/8/1983 from the office of District Child Officer Bikaner to District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaur but he did not join and so much so that he was suspended vide order dated 10/2/1984 with his Headquarter at Social Welfare Directorate where he also did not give joining till 1/3/1984. Petitioner SBCWP No.2542/2004. 2 filed appeal thereagainst which was also dismissed vide order dated 27/1/1995 and, thereafter, second appeal vide order dated 29/8/2001. 3) Shri D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner immediately after he was transferred, had represented the Directorate Social Welfare Department, Jaipur who orally assured him that his transfer would be cancelled but when he did not honour the assurance, petitioner sent a telegraphic representation to the Director. For some time thereafter, the petitioner could not join because he sustained injuries. It was argued that admittedly the period of absence was lateron regularised by grant of leave, therefore, it was argued that for the same period, petitioner cannot be awarded penalty. 4) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that for such a prolonged period of absence, petitioner has been let-off with minor penalty of censure. Mere regularisation of absence by grant of leave would not lead to inference that petitioner would not abide by the transfer order. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the order by which petitioner has been awarded penalty of censure cannot be said to be without basis. For such a period of absence, it cannot be said that the SBCWP No.2542/2004. 3 authority acted either contrary to law or otherwise against the reason or logic in proceeding against the petitioner for disciplinary action under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Mere oral assurance by the Director and the injury sustained by the petitioner cannot justify his prolonged absence. A government servant holds a transerrable post and he has to obey the transfer orders. The employee on his own cannot flout the order of the authority concerned. Even if the period of absence is regularised, that cannot absolve the petitioner of his misconduct. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil