SBCWP4598/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4598/1997 Mohan Lal Bairwa Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 24.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Arpit Shrivastava for Shri A.K. Bajpai, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Petitioner Mohan Lal Bairwa, being aggrieved by order dated 24.03.1995, has filed this writ petition. By aforesaid order, disciplinary authority after serving upon petitioner a notice under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rule, 1951, forfeited the period of his service from 14.02.1995 to 25.02.1995 and treated it as break in service. Respondents thereupon made fresh pay fixation of petitioner treating as if he was newly appointed, by order dated 24.01.1997. Both orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Shri Arpit Shrivastava, holding brief of Shri A.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for petitioner, has cited judgments of this Court SBCWP4598/1997 // 2 // in Kailash Chand Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 188 and Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2126/1994, decided on 15.12.2008. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that petitioner absented from duties without getting the leaves sanctioned therefore his case was rightly dealt with as per the provisions of Rule 86 of the RSR and impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity of law. In fact sanction of leaves applied for, was refused to petitioner and only then he absented from duties. Controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgments of this Court in Kailash Chand Sethi's case and Abdul Rehman's case (Supra). In both the cases, order awarding penalty of forfeiture of service was quashed and set aside as it could not be made without initiation of regular disciplinary enquiry and without proving of willful absence. Petitioner was not willful to remain absent for aforesaid period and it clearly reveals from the fact that he applied for leaves, although incidentally it may also be correct that the SBCWP4598/1997 // 3 // leaves were not sanctioned but then the consequence that followed by forfeiture of his service right from his initial appointment for the period from 14.02.1995 to 25.02.1995 i.e. for 12 days, was very serious. In view of detailed discussions made of such consequence in above referred judgment in Abdul Rehman's case (Supra), this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.03.1995 and 24.01.1997 are set-aside. Petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. Compliance of this judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//