1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4623/1999 Mam Raj Singh Chouhan VS. State of Rajasthan and Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12.11.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Y.P. Khileree, Dy. Govt. Counsel. To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 20.9.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, this petition for writ is preferred. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner, a Multi Purpose Worker in the office of Principal, Medical Officer, Hanumangarh by way of filing an appeal as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matter) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1976') sought a direction to permit him to mark his attendance in the office attendance register from 30.11.1997 to 1.12.1997 and also for making payment for the period commencing from 1.12.1997 to 31.8.1998. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected on the count that as per provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1976, an appeal lies against an order and in the instant case 2 there was no order under challenge. Learned Tribunal while rejecting the appeal also directed the respondents to decide the issue relating to the petitioner's absence from duties expeditiously. So far as, view taken by the learned Tribunal regarding maintainability of appeal is concerned, I do not find any error in that. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 prescribes that “The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal shall hear an appeal against the order passed by any officer or authority of any service matter or matters affecting the Government servant in his personal capacity.” In view of the provision aforesaid, there must be an order passed by any officer or authority on any service matter or matters affecting a Government servant. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no order passed by any officer or authority prohibiting the petitioner to put his signatures in attendance register. In absence of such an order, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the appeal was not maintainable. I have also examined the matter on merits ignoring the entire process relating to filing of appeal by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. Precisely, the issue deserves consideration is that whether the petitioner remained absent from duties from 30.11.1997 to 31.8.1998 unauthorisedly or he was restrained from marking attendance by the officers of the respondent department or by any other employee. 3 On 23.3.2009, the respondents were directed to make a definite statement regarding petitioner's absence from duties and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, if any, against him. An additional affidavit in pursuant thereto has been filed stating therein that under memorandum dated 30.3.2009, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same are yet pending. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, thus, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh then vide communication dated 16.4.2009 made a recommendation to drop disciplinary action. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondents that the recommendation so made has been negativated by the Additional Director (Administration) under a communication dated 9.11.2009, copy whereof is placed on record. The factual position stated in the preceding paras makes it abundantly clear that for the period of absence in question, the petitioner is facing a disciplinary action and that is yet to be completed. The factum of retirement of the petitioner in no way relevant for dropping such action in view of the provision of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. On asking, learned counsel for the respondents stated that if the petitioner cooperate, the entire disciplinary proceedings may be completed expeditiously as far as possible within a 4 period of six months from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate the disciplinary authority and enquiry officer, to get conclusion of disciplinary action. In view of whatever stated above, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ with the direction to the respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the memorandum dated 30.3.1999 within a period of six months from today. It is expected from the petitioner that he will cooperate the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority wholeheartedly during the process of disciplinary action. The petitioner, therefore, is directed to report before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh on 7.12.2009 and then the Chief Medical and Health Officer shall decide further course of enquiry. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Rm/-