IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1363 of 1999 SUNIL NAYAK V/S STATE OF RAJ AND ORS Mr. RANJEET JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 15.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt.18.8.99, dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed, seeking to challenge the orders Annexures-7, 8 and 13, by which the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from the service. The charges leveled against the petitioner are about his remaining willful absent from duty for a period of 241 days. Reply to the notice of charge-sheet, was submitted by the petitioner, with which the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied. Then, a regular inquiry was conducted. The inquiry was made after complying with the due process of law, then, after sending the enquiry report to the appellant and giving show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, vide Annexure-7, which has been upheld, as above. Learned Single Judge has found after perusal of the record, that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to meet the charges, the requisite procedure was properly followed, and the authorities in hierarchy have applied their mind in passing the impugned orders. Learned Single Judge has considered the submission about the quantum of punishment, and after referring to series of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment either. Arguing the appeal, main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that there were compelling circumstances, which could not be avoided by the appellant, whereby the appellant had to remain absent. But then, it cannot be said, that on that count charge of willful absent is made out, and in any case, in view of the said facts and circumstances, the quantum of punishment is required to be reduced. A look at Annexure-10, shows that, this is a certificate about death of the sister of the appellant, who died on 2.5.96. Then, Annexure-11 is certificate about the appellant's wife being sick with chest debility, and having remained under treatment. This exhibit Annexure-11 is dated 2 30.12.96. In this background, a look at the charge sheet shows, that the petitioner was bound down to report on election duty on 8.5.96, on which he did not report, and notices were sent to him on 3.7.96, 6.7.96, 11.9.96, 17.9.96, 24.10.96 and 8.11.96, but despite the due notices, he did not submit even any information. Thus, it is clear, that even after death of his sister on 2.5.96, the appellant willfully did not report on duty on 8.5.96, when he was deputed on election duty. Then so far as ailment of his wife is concerned, of course Annexure-11 is there. But then, it is not supported by requisite record about the admission in the hospital or discharge, and certificate is issued only by Medical Officer, Government Dispensary, Laxmi Nagar Jodhpur, about her being under treatment. But then, it does not show, that on that account the appellant was not able to report on the duty. Apart from this, the appellant did not submit application for grant of requisite leave, nor did the appropriate needful. In this background, a look at impugned orders shows, that these aspects have been considered by the learned authorities below, and it has been found, that even the subsequent conduct of the appellant, during inquiry was also found to be reprehensible. In other words, it has been found, that the appellant is not entitled to any compassion, on the basis of the circumstances projected. In our view, the orders impugned passed by the 3 authorities below, so also the learned single Judge, are well reasoned, and appropriate orders, and do not require interfere in our appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /vij / 4