Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Shri Om Prakash Java has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure -6) passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a departmental appeal affirming the order dated 24.01.2004 (Annexure -5) passed by the petitioner's disciplinary authority being the District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was inducted in service as a Class IV Employee at the Ajmer Judgeship and was posted in the Court of learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Vijay Nagar at the relevant point of time. He submitted a leave application dated 02.04.1993 to the Presiding Officer requesting for leave of two days from 04.04.1993 to 05.04.1993 and also sought permission to leave headquarter during this period. The application was accepted. The petitioner did not report back on duty after availing the sanctioned leave period and remained absent from 06.04.1993 to 04.02.1994. During this period, he did not submit any leave application nor did he send any intimation of his absence to the Presiding Officer. Two registered notices dated 05.06.1993 and 07.06.1993 were forwarded to the petitioner's residential address at Jodhpur intimating him that he should report for duty within a period of 15 days of receiving the notice. The registered envelopes were not accepted by the petitioner employee and were returned back with a note that the addressee was not residing at the given address. On 05.02.1994, the petitioner appeared in the office and sought time to furnish an explanation and relevant documents to justify the period of his absence between 06.04.1993 to 04.02.1994. A notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner employee on 19.03.1994 which he replied on 23.03.1994 stating therein that he had been prevented from appearing for duty on account of his own and his father's ailments. During this period, he was not residing at his own house and instead, was residing at his father's house and therefore, he could not receive the registered notices sent to his residence at Jodhpur. A Bed head ticket issued by the Government Hospital regarding the hospitalization of the petitioner's father was also submitted alongwith the explanation letter. The Presiding Officer, however, did not consider the explanation satisfactory and proposed issuance of a charge -sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules, 1958') to the petitioner. Consequently, a departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was instituted against the petitioner and an inquiry officer was appointed to hold the inquiry. The petitioner was supplied the memorandum and articles of charge. The following charges were framed against the petitioner: - - He sought opportunity of personal hearing which was provided to him. Numerous opportunities of submitting a reply were provided to the petitioner. However, neither he appeared in person before the inquiry officer nor did he submit any reply/explanation to the charge sheet. Registered notices forwarded to the petitioner's residential address were received back unserved. Thereafter, a notice was also got published in 'Dainik Navjyoti' newspaper on 04.12.2000 but despite publication of the notice, the petitioner did not appear for contesting the charge sheet. Accordingly, on 18.01.2001, ex -parte proceedings were directed by the inquiry officer. The department examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents in support of the charges. The inquiry officer, upon conclusion of the inquiry, found the petitioner guilty of willfully remaining absent from duty for the period between 06.04.1993 to 04.02.1994. It was further held that during this period, he deliberately avoided receiving the registered notices sent at his residential address for rejoining duty. The explanation submitted by the petitioner for his unauthorised absence was found unsatisfactory. The bed head ticket, which was filed by the petitioner by way of a justification, reflected that the petitioner's father was admitted in a Government Hospital at Jodhpur on 16.05.1993 but, no document was placed on record to show the duration for which the petitioner's father remained hospitalized. The inquiry officer held that numerous opportunities were provided to the petitioner for his defence during the inquiry but, he deliberately avoided participation in the inquiry even despite publication of notice in the newspaper. The inquiry officer concluded by way of his detailed inquiry report (Annex.3) dated 20.03.2001 that all the three charges were proved against the petitioner employee. The copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner's residential address at Jodhpur but despite receiving information thereof, the petitioner failed to appear before the disciplinary authority as well. The disciplinary authority being the District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, after considering the department's case and the petitioner's explanation in detail, passed the order dated 24.01.2004 (Annexure -5) terminating the petitioner from service. The petitioner employee preferred an appeal against the order of termination before the appellate authority being the Rajasthan High Court. The appellate authority issued a notice of hearing to the petitioner employee. However, he failed to appear for contesting the appeal also. Thereupon, the appellate authority heard the arguments of the Presenting Officer and after perusing the record of the case, affirmed the order of termination, by its order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure -6). The petitioner, thereafter, claims to have filed a review petition and an application dated 18.07.2010 (Annexure -7) praying that one Shri Arun Vyas be appointed as his defence nominee in the appeal. However, as has been noticed above, the appeal preferred by the petitioner employee had already been rejected much before the submission of the said application and as such, the same was filed. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality of the order of termination dated 24.01.2004 (Annexure -5) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure -6), whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner employee was dismissed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the petitioner was not provided with an appropriate opportunity of defence either by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and, therefore, the impugned orders suffer from vice on having being passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and are thus liable to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner also submitted a review application but the said review application was filed without being properly considered.;