CW 1265/95 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1265/95 Hari Prasad Sharma Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 17/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. M.M. Ranjan with Mr. Rajat Ranjan, for petitioner Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.25/07/92 (Ann.4) passed by the authority in exercise of powers under R.86 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1957 (“R.S.R.”) forfeiting his past service and so also rejection of his appeal by Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide order Ann.6 dt.25th April, 1994. Petitioner initially joined service in the cadre of Class IV on 25th June, 1987. However, the petitioner remained absent from duty without applying for leave from 12th October, 1990 and reported back for duty on 30th July, 1991. For his absence from duty, ibid, notice dt.30/01/92 (Ann.2) U/r 86(1) of RSR was served upon him and after taking note of his explanation, the authority was not satisfied thereto and finally forfeited his past service in exercise of powers U/r 86(1) of RSR vide order dt.25/07/92 (Ann.4) CW 1265/95 [2] but at the same time observed that for wilful absence from duty, disciplinary action should also be initiated against him under Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) - against which, petitioner preferred an appeal before Collector, Sawai Madhopur, who after upholding forfeiture of his past service, partly allowed his appeal vide order dt.25/04/94 (Ann.6); and set aside the initiation of disciplinary inquiry against him vide order of authority (Ann.4). Counsel for petitioner in fact has reiterated submissions which the petitioner urged in his explanation before the competent authority and which has already been considered by authority in details assigning reasons that petitioner could not join his duties during intervening period being treated as absence from 12th October, 1992 to 30th July, 1991. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this court in Mohan Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan [1996 RLR (1)-479]. In reply, respondents inter-alia averred that for alleged absence from duty, petitioner never came with satisfactory explanation despite notices being served upon nor it was case of petitioner that notice referred to by the CW 1265/95 [3] authority dt.30/01/92 calling for his explanation was not served upon him – in absence whereof, it was a clear case of absence from duty without prior permission/leave and the authority has rightly in exercise of powers U/r 86(1) of RSR has forfeited his past services and the appellate authority has also considered in detail and rejected his appeal vide order dt.25/04/94 (Ann.6); in such circumstances, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined the material on record. U/r 86(1) of RSR if government servant remains absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority, he shall be treated to have remained wilfully absent from duty, and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless satisfactory explanation for alleged absence has been furnished by employee and for wilful absence from duty, disciplinary action under CCA Rules can be initiated as per R.86(3) of RSR. In instant case, petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f. 12th October, 1990 and despite notices calling for his explanation and to report CW 1265/95 [4] for duty vide notices dt.4th December, 1990, 7th February, 1991 and 26th June, 1991 were served upon him, petitioner failed to report back for duty and he never came forward with satisfactory explanation for his alleged absence and accordingly forfeited his past services vide order (Ann.4). However, further direction for holding of disciplinary inquiry under CCA Rules has rightly been set aside in appeal since once his past service stood forfeited, there was no justification available to initiate inquiry under CCA Rules. As regards submissions made by Counsel for petitioner about his explanation, suffice it to say that explanation has already been considered at administrative level, which was not found to be satisfactory by competent authority. This Court is not sitting as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record by arriving at its own finding in limited jurisdiction U/Art. 226 of the Constitution. However, it is not the case of petitioner that procedure as provided U/r 86(1) of RSR have not been followed or there is a violation of principles of natural justice in course of inquiry while passing order (Ann.4). Judgment in Mohan Lal Meena Vs. State of CW 1265/95 [5] Rajasthan [supra] on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance, is of no assistance in the facts of instant case for the reason that it was a case where this Court observed that wilful absence from duty is a misconduct, for which one can be held to be guilty only after holding inquiry under CCA Rules, 1958 which certainly could have been initiated in terms of R.86(3) of RSR. However, in instant case, the authority while treating him absent from duty without leave, found his explanation not satisfactory to regularise by way of grant of leave, in exercise of power U/s 86(1) of RSR forfeited his past service, which is certainly in consonance with law. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. K.Khatri/FRBohra/p.5/1265CW95Fb17FrbAbst.doc