CWP 12291 /09 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No.12291/2009 Laxmi Chand Gupta Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 05/10/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Satish Bijarnia, for petitioner Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a retired personnel. While holding the post of Office Assistant, he was served with a memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 on 20/11/2002 for the alleged misconduct with regard to absence from duty. By the time his reply could have been taken into consideration, he stood retired from service. The disciplinary authority, however after holding him guilty took a lenient view punished with recorded warning and further ordered for sanctioning extra- ordinary leave without pay under Rule 86(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. However, the period of absence has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Against the said order, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 but after a CWP 12291 /09 2 considerable long time, preferred a revision petition under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, which was obviously rejected on 19/11/2008 (Anx.1). Counsel for petitioner contended that the leave application was duly furnished by him and the leaves were also credited in his leave account, but the disciplinary authority did not take note of the same while holding the act of the petitioner to be a misconduct under the conduct Rules of 1971 and this being an apparent error which the disciplinary authority has committed while holding the petitioner guilty under order impugned Anx.3 dated 01st January, 2003. From very perusal of the order impugned Anx.-3 dated 01st January, 2003, it reveals that the disciplinary authority has considered the complete record of enquiry and taking note of the leave application submitted by the petitioner, finally arrived at a conclusion that he has not submitted leave application for 53 CWP 12291 /09 3 days (19/02/2002 to 12/04/2002), as such, his leave was not sanctioned which was to be considered to be a misconduct on the part of the petitioner but since he stood retired from service in the meantime, it was considered appropriate not to inflict any penalty as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules but observed to record a recorded warning and regularize the period of leave of 53 days without pay which certainly could not have caused any prejudice to the petitioner while computing his retiral dues This court, after going through the order impugned does not find any error being committed by the authority while passing the order of punishment dated 01/01/2003. So far as the revision petition is concerned, the same has rightly been rejected for the simple reason the revisional authority was not required to appreciate the facts and what has been considered by the disciplinary authority, a remedy was available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, which admittedly was not preferred by him and in the absence of any penalty being inflicted, revision was rightly CWP 12291 /09 4 rejected. This Court does not finding any substance in the instant writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu/12291-cw-2009-final.doc