G. S. SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner may have or may not have committed delinquency during the period of his service. This and a further question as to whether order of punishment passed against him is justified or not does not require a determination on merit at this stage because I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition deserves to be decided on a limited ground namely, whether the dismissal of the review petition filed under rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as barred by limitation is legally justified,
(2.) BEFORE I proceed further, I consider it appropriate to take note of the agony which the petitioner has suffered for no fault of his. Order of his removal from service was issued on 30. 11. 81. The petitioner says that he had suffered from mental disorder and while he was undergoing treatment the authorities proceeded against him on the ground of his alleged absence from illness he reported for duty but he was not allowed to join. Instead, he was told that he stands removed from service. He then applied for supply of copy of order of punishment and expressed his willingness to bear the expenses. His request however, went unheeded. He then filed a review petition before the Governor under Rule-34 of 1958 Rules. The same has been dismissed as barred by limitation and this decision has been conveyed to him vide letter dated, 7. 11. 86. He then filed this writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner has been waiting with a faint hope of justice. His case could not be taken up for hearing for last five years. This may be due to heavy work load in the Court. This may also be on account of non-availability of sufficient number of Judges in the High Court. It is difficult to pin point a particular reason which comes as a stumbling block in the matter of timely appointment of Judges but the fact remains that there is undue delay in such appointments. However, what is more agonizing for the petitioner is that when after a wait for five years his turn has ultimately come for effective hearing of the case, his counsel has thought it proper to abstain from the Court. Some litigants who are present in the Court say that they are bycotting the Court's working. Whatever be position, so far as the petitioner is concerned he feels that he has been put to great handicap because his Advocate has not come to argue his case. I do not want to make a detailed examination of the mortality and ethics of the growing tendency amongst the members of legal profession to abstain from Court work on any pretext and on any issue. However, agony which the litigating public has suffered all over the country during the past few years has compelled me to observe that this growing tendency amongst the learned members of the bar may lead to untelling consequences. System of dispensation of justice adopted by the people of this country envisages an important role by the members of legal profession. People come to them for seeking justice. Client engages a counsel with absolute faith and trust in him. A litigant places in his hands of an Advocate matter relating to his personal liberty, status and property etc. with utmost confidence and he feels that his Advocate has treated him unfairly by not presenting himself for arguing the case. Precisely for this reason litigants have insisted that they would argue their cases personally even without their Advocate. The realisation on the part of the litigating public that it cap present its case before the Court without the assistance of the Counsel hasn extremely grave consequence of rendering the very existence of the profession as irrelevant in the process of dispensation of justice. The members of the Bar must not forget that it is the legal profession which had played most pivotal role in the struggle for the independence of the country. The member of the legal fraternity had kept the issues relating to the rights of the citizen much above their personal interest. Even in the post independence era the legal profession has acted as champion of the rights of the individuals as well as the society. Therefore, it is high time that the members of the profession coolly ponder over this issue and take steps to avoid a situation where the whole profession may not bear the stigma of not doing its duty towards the clients the people of this country. Whether in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fulfilled his obligation towards his client or not is a matter which I leave to be decided by himself. However, so far as the Court is concerned, absence of the learned counsel cannot and will not detract it from adjudicating the matter on merits. Judges of the Courts are citizens of this Country and they are bound by the oath which they have taken for discharging their duty faithfully and to the best of their ability and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as well as the laws of this land. People of this country have given the Constitution to themselves and therefore, every citizen including the members of the judicial fraternity have to discharge their Constitutional obligations for securing to all the citizens of this country, justice, social, economic and political; equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual. As citizens of the country members of the judicial fraternity owe their duty to other citizens and therefore the fundamental duties imposed under Article 51a of the Constitution of India have to be discharged by them like any other citizen. Their accountability is to the people of this country and not to the members of the Bar. For this reason, I have no hesitation in accepting the request of the petitioner to hear and consider the matter on merits. Apart from the fact that the counsel for the petitioner has not considered it appropriate to argue the case of his client, equally astonishing is the fact that even the Government counsel and the Officer Incharge of the case has thought it proper to abstain. Officer Incharge of the case was present in the Court yesterday on 22. 4. 93. Court had made enquiry from him on the question of communication of the order of punishment to the petitioner and he had expressed- his inability to produce the record. The Officer Incharge did not consider it appropriate to produce the record even though the Court persistently directed him to produce the record so that the Court may itself find out as to whether the order of punishment dated, 30. 11. 84 had in fact, been served on the petitioner or not. Today, the Officer Incharge has found it convenient not to appear in the Court what to say of producing the record. The conduct on the part of a Government Officer cannot at all be appreciated. Prima facie, I am of the view that the concerned Officer has failed to discharge his duty towards the Government by remaining absent from the Court proceedings at the time of hearing of the case. For deciding this case few facts need narration. The petitioner passed M. Com. examination from the University of Rajasthan before entering the service. He was appointed as Statistical Assistant on temporary basis in the Department of Economics and Statistics of the Government of Rajasthan w. e. f. 21. 2. 75. In the year 1978 his case was considered by a Screening Committee for regularisation of his service. On having been found suitable by the Screening Committee the petitioner was regularised in service. According to the petitioner, he fell ill with effect from 24. 8. 79 and- therefore, he applied for grant of medical leave, The doctor had diagnosed mental illness and therefore, the petitioner could not attend his duties for sufficiently long time. He was initially treated at Jhunjhunu and since no improvement in his. health was visible, his father took him to Hanumangarh. There he was treated in National Clinic. In July 1984 he recovered from his illness and then reported for duty at his Jhunjhunu Office on 21. 7. 84. He was however, not allowed to resume duty and was told that he has already been dismissed from service. He met with the Director of Economics and Statistics, who advised him to make a representation to the Government. The Government rejected his representation vide communication dated, 19. 4. 85. The petitioner has stated that on 17. 5. 85 he submitted separate applications to the Secretary to the Government as well as to the Director and requested for supply of copy of the order of dismissal passed against him. He expressed his willingness to pay requisite charges. Notwithstanding this, copy of the order of dismissal was not supplied to him. He then submitted a review petition under Rule 34 of 1958 Rules before the Governor of Rajasthan. His review petition dated 20,5. 85 has been dismissed as barred by time. The decision of the Governor has been conveyed to him vide letter dated, 7. 11. 76 (Annex. 12 ).
(3.) PETITIONER has challenged the action of the respondents resulting in his dismissal from service as well as rejection of his review petition. Apart from other points, the petitioner has asserted that non-supply of copy of the order of punishment has caused serious prejudice to him because in the absence of copy of order of punishment, he could not effectively challenge the same either in review petition or in this writ petition and also that dismissal of his review petition on the ground of limitation is without jurisdiction. In reply, respondents have stated that with effect from 24. 8. 79 the petitioner absented from duty, without any intimation. He had not submitted any application for grant of leave. Notices were sent to the petitioner calling upon him to resume his duty but no reply was given by the petitioner. Letter dated, 28. 1. 80 was sent to the petitioner at his home address. The same was received by one Shri Viney Kumar on behalf of the petitioner. Despite this, the petitioner did not join duty. Thereafter, proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 were initiated against the petitioner. After following the prescribed procedure, order dated, 3. 10. 81 (Annex. R-3) was passed removing him from service. The petitioner for the first time reported in the office in the year 1984 with a medical certificate issued by a private doctor. However, since he had already been removed from service, there was no occasion for his being allowed to join duty. Respondents have stated that notice issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of 1958 was got published in Rajasthan Patrika dated, 29. 7. 81 through the Directorate of Public Relation, Rajasthan, Jaipur. No reply was received even thereafter. Consequently, an ex parte inquiry was held against him. Notice dated 3. 10. 81 was also got published in Daily Rashtradoot dated, 12. 10. 81 and Dainik Navjyoti dated, 8. 10. 81. Petitioner was given three weeks' time to file reply to the show cause notice. Since he failed to respond, order dated, 30. 11. 81 was passed under Rule 14 (iv) of 1958 Rules. According to the respondents, action taken against the petitioner is perfectly in accordance with the Rules. Dismissal of his review petition is also justified because it was submitted after expiry of more than three years of the date of punishment. According to the respondents, review petition filed after more than three years of the date of order of punishment cannot be entertained under Rule 34 of 1958 Rules. Although, number of grounds have been raised in writ petition for challenging the penalty imposed on the petitioner. In my opinion, it is neither necessary nor proper to enter into the merits of the dismissal of the petitioner because, I am of the opinion that rejection of the review petition of the petitioner on the ground of bar of limitation is wholly arbitrary and therefore, a direction deserves to be given for reconsideration of review petition filed by the petitioner. For deciding the questions as to whether communication dated, 7. 11. 86 (Annex. 12) containing the order of the Governor for rejection of review petition filed by the petitioner is legally justified or not, it would be appropriate to recapitulate some of the averments made in the petition as well as in the reply. ;