1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGEMENT D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1152/08 Ahsan Ahmed vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 5th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Amin Ali for the appellant This appeal seeks to challenge the judgement passed by learned Single Judge dated 10.12.07 whereunder writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his removal dated 22.10.1988, has been dismissed. The appellant was working as Lower Divisional Clerk with the respondents. He proceeded on leave from 22.8.1984 till 7.9.1984 and thereafter absented from his duties. It appears from the record that respondents dealt with this matter in a disciplinary proceeding by issuing charge sheet, which was conducted ex-parte against him and eventually culminated into the order of his removal impugned before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the appellant could not be removed in a summary manner without regular enquiry and that the petitioner had a valid reason for his absence because he was suffering from some mental ailment and so soon he recovered therefrom, he attended the office of the respondents and produced medical certificates for the period of absence. It was argued that the respondents have not adopted the proper procedure of enquiry, nor have they supplied the copy of charge sheet or even the report of the enquiry or any other document relied against 2 him which eventually formed basis of the order of removal. The appellant, when he reported back on duties on 24.3.1988, ought to have been associated in the enquiry from that stage onwards, if at all any such enquiry was actually conducted. The learned Single Judge was not justified in appreciating all these aspects of the matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge and other material forming part of the record. The learned Single Judge found that the disciplinary authority made best of its efforts to inform the appellant and notice and charge sheet were both published in the newspapers. The appellant was absolutely casual and reckless in his approach. When an employee remains absent for a long period of four years and does not report back to the office to attend his duties, the employer cannot be expected not to proceed against him in the departmental enquiry. Even when the departmental enquiry was initiated against him, he did not respondent to the notices which ultimately were published in the newspaper along with charge sheet. The appellant even did not bother to attend the enquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge also observed that the medical certificates which have been produced on record show that the appellant has been changing his version about illness from time to time. The period of absence, even otherwise, is therefore not satisfactorily explained. The order of removal which is on record indicates that the efforts were made by the disciplinary authority to serve upon him notice on 20.2.88 by registered post and when it was returned back, the notice was published in `Dainik Navjyoti', a hindu 3 daily, on 9.4.1986 and a local newspaper `Khamosh' on 11.4.1986. The appellant did not respond to the notice of enquiry, nor did he appear before the disciplinary authority. The regular charge-sheet was issued to the appellant which too was published in widely circulated daily newspaper `Rajasthan Patrika' on 23.9.1986 and local newspaper `Khamosh' on the same day. In the notice along with charges that were published as aforesaid, it was clearly stated that in case the appellant did not attend his duties and did not appear before the disciplinary authority, ex-parte proceedings shall be drawn against him. Eventually, the disciplinary authority decided the matter against him, finding the charges proved and removed him from service. In view of the conduct of the appellant, we are not persuaded to take any other view of the matter, particularly when the order of removal relates back to the year 1988 and the appellant's absence was as long as four years. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. ravi/-