Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. - (1.) The above appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 13-12-2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Division Bench (Civil) Special Appeal No. 1073 of 2001 wherein the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed by the High Court by a non-speaking order.
(2.) The respondent-herein joined the services of the Government of Rajasthan in the Co-operative Department. He was promoted as UDC in March, 1965. He applied for 3 days leave while he was working as UDC. According to him, he became sick and could not attend the office for the period from 9-1-1978 to 19-1-1981. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. The enquiry was held and the respondent attended the enquiry. It is his further case that he was not allowed to join duty even though he was marking his presence from 13-8-1984 to 23-8-1984. His services were terminated by way of publication in newspaper - Dainik Navjyoti dated 27-8-1984. He filed the appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 8-3-1988. It is also his case that notice which was sent to the respondent was deliberately sent on wrong address. Aggrieved against the orders dated 15-11-1984 and 8-3-1988, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court in the year 1991 i.e. after a gap of about 3 years.
(3.) Learned Single Judge of the High Court though endorses that the respondent did remain absent for about 3 years and that there was no satisfactory explanation to justify absence of 3 years still proceeded to reduce the punishment of removal into compulsory retirement with consequential retiral benefits. It is useful to reproduce the concluding portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is as follows : "However, it goes without saying that the Petitioner remained absent from about 3 years. He was asked time and again to join duties. There are hardly any medical certificates placed on record even if the enquiry would have been conducted in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity, the admitted fact of absence was borne out from the record and in such situation, in my opinion, even if the Petitioner would not have been present in the enquiry, it would not have made any difference at all as the Petitioner himself has admitted that he was absent for about three years for the period mentioned above though the only circumstances which he could have brought on record was his justification for remaining absent or producing the medical certificate which were in any case not attached with the leave applications and in such situation, he could have prayed for some lesser punishment. Viewing all the aspects of the case and in the circumstances, in my opinion for the reason that he has put in already 18 years of service, a lesser punishment could have been imposed. It is a fit case where in view of the above circumstances, instead of reinstatement in service, the lesser punishment of compulsorily retiring the Petitioner can be passed and he can be retired as if he has qualified the minimum service to obtain retiral benefits which may be available to him. It is a fit case where in view of the above circumstances, the Petitioner can be deemed to have retired after seeking of service of 20 years with all retiral benefits, which may be available to him. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of." ;