Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Dr. K.C. Gupta has filed this writ petition challenging memo of charge -sheet and praying for quashment of disciplinary proceedings with further prayer that period of service during his foreign assignment from 25.09.1984 to 12.09.1989 be regularized and accordingly pay of petitioner be ordered to be fixed in the Revised Pay Scales of 1987 and 1989 and, respondents be further directed to grant him all consequential benefits together with interest.
(2.) MS . Gayatri Rathore, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was sent on deputation on a foreign assignment with the Government of Libya and in this connection she cited a letter dated 05.09.1984 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. It is contended that respondents in several similar cases such as of Dr. S.N. Mathur, sanctioned leave for the period from 16.02.1984 to 26.12.1988, during which he was on foreign assignment by order dated 05.05.1995. The respondents have acted malafidely and in biased manner in not revising the period of foreign assignment of the petitioner from 25.09.1984 to 12.09.1989. The petitioner was unduly kept Awaiting Posting Order from 13.09.1989 to 25.04.1990 and was ultimately compelled to seek voluntarily retirement by giving three months notice vide his letter dated 26.07.1994. His application for voluntary retirement was not accepted and he was conveyed by letter dated 22.10.1994 that since decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner as such he could not be allowed voluntary retirement. It is contended that petitioner was thereafter also promoted on the post of Junior Specialist, therefore, his conduct stood waived. It is contended that the disciplinary proceeding have remained stayed against the petitioner on account of interim stay order of this Court dated 16.05.1997 and the same may not be allowed to proceed against the petitioner after such a long period of time which even otherwise was initiated with delay of six years. Learned Counsel for respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that permission to petitioner to go on foreign assignment was given only for a period of one year and neither there was extension of such permission nor any no objection to stay beyond one year was granted. It is contended that in absence of any specific order either extending permission or granting no objection, the petitioner could not assume that his leave would stand extended just because he had accepted assignment outside the country. If he had continued in such assignment without permission or leave, he did so at his own will. The disciplinary authority cannot be precluded from holding disciplinary proceedings on such matter. Learned Counsel submitted that delay of six years was not so much so as to dis -entitle the disciplinary authority to even issue the charge -sheet and take the matter to its conclusion. The retirement of petitioner has taken place in 2007 much after filing of the writ petition and the disciplinary proceedings remained pending on account of interim stay order of this Court passed in 1997. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings remained stayed pursuant to interim order passed by this Court cannot be an additional reason for quashing of charge -sheet, if otherwise the respondents have a case worth proceeding against the petitioner in departmental action. The argument of discrimination has already been rejected by this Court in similar Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3888/1996 - Dr. S.C. Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the available record and also the charge -sheet. Upon a pointed query being put to learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, he was unable to show whether any extension was given or no objection was issued to the petitioner to continue in foreign assignment after one year. It also could not be shown that whether leave was granted to petitioner. The charge -sheet that has been issued is for willful absence. If this absence was not willful or leave would be deemed granted or extension of leave would be assumed, all these issues shall have to be examined in a full -fledged enquiry.;