NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the imposition of penalty of removal from service, made by the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 16th/17th July, 1982 (Ann. 6) and the appellate order dated 27th Sept., 1982 (Ann. 8).
(2.) THE charge framed against the petitioner was that he remained absent from his duties as Class -IV servant, without previous sanction or permission, during the following four periods: (1) From 1.8.1980 to 3.9.1980 (2) From 4.9.1980 to 23.9.1980 (3) From 27.9.1980 to 1.10.1980 (4) From 4.10.1980 to 3.12.1980 A statement of allegations, along with a memorandum was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge -sheet served upon him. In his reply, the petitioner stated that during the period from 1st Aug.,'80 to 16th Aug.,'80, he was posted in the Education (Group -3) Department of the Rajasthan Secretariat, and that with respect to this period, the mark of his attendance found place in the Attendance -Register of that department. After availing leave for the period from 17th Aug.,'80 to 2nd Sept.,'80, he had appeared in the department and he had sent his application for leave for the said period to the department. In relation to the period from 11th Sept.,'80 to 24th Sept.,'80, he had submitted application for leave in the Education Department, and that department had forwarded the same to the Department of Personnel (DOP), fro formal sanction, but, the DOP did not issue the sanction. As regards the period from 25th Sejpt.,'80 to 31st Dec.80, the petitioner stated that he had made an application for leave to the DOP (A -2), and after availing of the leave, he had reported himself on duty on 1st Jan., 81. He also stated that he had been sending leave applications from time to time, but, unfortunately, they were not available in the office, and probably they were not traceable. He concluded that he had not remained absent wilfully and without previous sanction of leave and he had been sending leave applications from time to time. By an order dated 24th Dec., '81 (Ann.3), the Disciplinary Authority appointed Suraj Mal Kedwal, Section -Officer of the DOP in Administrative Reforms, as Enquiry -Officer, to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. By another order (Ann.4), Hiralal Sharma UDC, was appointed as Presenting Officer. After perusing the reply filed by the petitioner to the chargesheet, the Disciplinary authority decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner.
(3.) THE Enquiry -Officer gave a notice to the petitioner on 29th Dec,'81, to appear before him on 11th Jan.,'82, to present his case. That notice could not be served upon the petitioner, and there was a report of the Diarist that the petitioner was not available in the Secretariat and that none else in the Education Department accepted the notice. Thereafter, another notice was issued, requiring the petitioner to appear on 18th Jan.,'82. However, on 19th Jan.,'82, at 10.30 a.m., Presenting Officer Hiralal Sharma appeared along with the petitioner before the Enquiry -Officer. The Enquiry -Officer heard both the Department Representative and the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner invited the attention of the Enquiry -Officer, to the reply that he had given to the charge -sheet on 21st Jan, '81, addressed to the Assistant Secretary. That reply was available on the file of the DOP. After perusing the reply, the Enquiry -Officer fixed 10th Feb.,'82 as the next date. The petitioner had been given due notice on 19th Jan.,'82, of the next date, i.e., 10th Feb.,'82. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry -Officer on 10th Feb.,'82. The Enquiry -Officer perused the Attendance Register, maintained in the Education (Group -3) Department, in relation to the period from 1st Aug.,'80 to 16th Aug.,'80, and from its perusal, it appeared that the petitioner was not regularly present during that period. In between the said period, the petitioner had remained absent from time to time, and he also did not make applications for leave, in time. A statement was prepared with respect to the period from 1st Aug.,'80 to 31st Dec.,'80 showing the attendance of the petitioner and his leave applications, which was at page -6 of the file. The Enquiry -Officer found that the petitioner used to make applications for Privilege Leave after returning from leave, and this was contrary to rules. He enquired from the Departmental Representative as to why the leave applied for by the petitioner was not sanctioned. The Departmental Representative informed the Enquiry -Officer that the petitioner had been absent from 28th Dec,'79 to 27th July, 80 also and that his past services in relation to the said period was forfeited. In such circumstances, till that past matter was decided, it was not possible to sanction leave to the petitioner. This explanation was accepted by the Enquiry -Officer. The Enquiry -Officer made reference to the application for leave, which the petitioner had submitted after availing of leave, and which was available at page 20 of the file, submitted before him. It was urged by the Departmental Representative that every employee of the Government knows the rules that it is necessary to obtain permission or sanction for availing of leave before proceeding to avail it. On this basis, the Enquiry -Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him.;