RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner-Rakesh Kumar against the order dated 24/6/1998 passed by the Commandant third battalion RAC Bikaner whereby he was awarded reduction of minimum of pay scale for a period of five years and order dated 9/4/2001 by which his appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that enquiry against the petitioner has not been conducted as per the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the "rules of 1958") inasmuch as, the enquiry officer has neither discussed the evidence produced by the department nor has he made any reference to the documents produced by the petitioner. The enquiry officer recorded a finding against the petitioner without discussion of evidence or material available on record. Even the appellate authority has not discussed such documents. Petitioner never remained absent for 253 days. In fact, he proceeded on leave from 17/12/1996 to 22/12/1996 after due sanction of leave to him and, thereafter, in the circumstances which were beyond his control such as, he had to take his son aged four years for his treatment who was suffering from polio and his treatment remained continued till 31/8/1997 at Buland Shahar, he remained on leave for the period in question. Petitioner produced copy of the medical certificate issued by 'vaidhya'. Petitioner sent several communications by registered post to the respondents. He even offered the respondents to get his son medically examined by an expert or medical board to test the genuineness of the deceased of his son. Regarding Charge No. 2, it was contended that petitioner received only one notice for attending duties and not 13 notices as alleged by the department which fact was found proved by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel further contended that Charge No. 3 was absolutely unfounded inasmuch as, the petitioner could not be subjected to disciplinary enquiry on Charge No. 3 for absence from duties for 347 days during the period of 8 years from 1988 to 1996 in different spells, which were all duly granted leaves. Enquiry Officer has drawn the report without giving definite findings on the charges. The appellate authority has also failed to address dates on the arguments raised. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the charge of absence for same period against the petitioner is taken as proved is not denied and third charge being ignored such charge would not justify imposition of severe penalty of reduction of minimum of pay scale. This aspect of the matter has not been examined appropriately by the disciplinary authority as also by the appellate authority. Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that Charge No. 3 was incorporated as one of the charges only in order to show past conduct of the petitioner that earlier also, petitioner remained absent from duty for long durations though ultimately those period of absence were regularised by sanction of leave. Petitioner was ultimately required to attend his duties and several notices were issued to him but he failed to attend his duties. It was argued that even if the fact that petitioner was granted the leave of 145 days, that would not justify his absence from duties for 253 days. Petitioner was serving as Member of the Rajasthan Armed Command and being part of such a disciplined force, he was expected to act in a most sensible and responsible manner. The penalty of reduction to the minimum of pay scale for a period of five years, in view of absence for such a long time, cannot be said to disproportionate to the gravity of the charge or otherwise unreasonable. The petitioner simply produced copy of the medical certificate and beyond that, he did not produce prior intimation regarding himself remaining on leave due to undergoing treatment of his son. Learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that petitioner while on one hand asserted in reply to Charge No. 4 that he was away in connection with treatment of his son but on the other, petitioner asserted that his mother was ill and he had to attend her. Learned Deputy Government Counsel therefore prayed that this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review, would not liable to interfere with matter like this. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material forming part of this writ petition, I find that though there are three charges but in fact, Charge No. 3 is only to the effect that during earlier period, petitioner remained absent from duty and this charge was intended to show his conduct but at the same time, when period of absence under Charge No. 3 is regularised by sanction of extraordinary leave, that could not by itself be made a basis for imposition of penalty that has ultimately been imposed upon the petitioner. What has to be therefore, examined is whether other charges, are being proved, the imposition of penalty in reduction of minimum of pay scale for a period of 5 years is justified. Charge No. 1 against the petitioner is that while he was posted as Constable with 'a' Company third battalion RAC (IR), Ghazipur, New Delhi, he was granted 5 days casual leave w. e. f. 17/12/1996 to 22/12/1996 but he thereafter absented for 253 days and ultimately returned to his duties on 2/9/1997. Charge No. 2 against the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the respondents by 13 notices/communications required him to attend duties, he failed to do so and remained absent for 253 days. Only defence that was offered by the petitioner before the enquiry officer in so far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, was that he had been granted leave for 5 days when he proceeded to Buland Shahar for treatment of his son who was suffering from Polio and that treatment of his son continued there till 31/7/1997. In other words, the petitioner wanted to show that leave which was granted to him in December 1996 was availed of by him for the purpose of treatment of his son who was suffering from Polio and whose treatment continued till 31/7/1997 at Buland Shahar by certain 'vaidhya'. Only evidence that was produced by the petitioner in support of his assertion was certificate issued by the aforesaid 'vaidhya and no other evidence was produced. Rather, petitioner wanted to adduce additional evidence by offering his son for his medical examination. It is true that standard of proof in departmental enquiries is preprodence of evidence which initially lies on the department which was required to prove the absence without leave which it has proved. If the delinquent wants to assert that absence was not willful but due to the circumstances which were beyond his control, he was required to prove so. Charge No. 2 was to the effect that there were as many as 13 notices issued to the petitioner and the petitioner failed to explain why did he not turn up to attend his duty even after repeated notices. The petitioner admitted having received only one notice but he explained the same by saying that he was busy with the treatment of his son, therefore he could not appear. Additionally, petitioner also asserted that his mother was taken ill and he also produced certificate of illness of his mother. He further asserted that he had submitted four applications under UPC for grant of leave and in response to Charge No. 2, he asserted that though he received notice but he could not attend to his duties because of his pre-occupation with the treatment of his mother. This clearly prove that he was wilfully absent from his duty for such a long time. The department, in my view, was able to prove two charges against the petitioner and mere fact that petitioner asserted that he had sent four applications under UPC, would by itself not justify his prolonged absence from duty especially when he was member of a disciplined force and he remained absent from duty for a long time and thereafter when he was required to return by repeated notices to his duties, he did not respond. In my considered view, even if Charge No. 3 is misconceived, even first two charges would justify penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Penalty of reduction to the minimum of pay scales for a period of five years cannot be said to be disproportionate looking to the gravity of misconduct and does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the point of penalty of reduction. I therefore do not find any case for any interference by this court. The writ petition, which lacks merit, is accordingly dismissed. . ;