Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :- "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 26.11.2005, 28.11.2005, 22.05.2007 and 13.01.2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The petitioner may kindly be exonerated from the charges levelled in the memo of charges dated 04.03.2005, the findings of enquiry officer contained in the enquiry report dated 28.04.2005 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner joined the post of LDC vide order dated 12.12.1984. The petitioner's record except for the absence remained clean. On 11.08.2004, the petitioner fell ill and therefore, sent a telegram seeking leave. The respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Rule 86(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 for remaining on unauthorize leave without any application from 23.08.2004 to 04.09.2004. The petitioner replied that on account of sudden illness, the petitioner remained absent for such period but he had not willfully neglected the duty. The memo of charges were issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 whereby the charge No.1 was to the effect that the petitioner remained absent from his duties from 23.08.2004 to 04.09.2004 and charge No.2 was to the effect that the petitioner remained absent from duties from 28.08.2004 to 04.09.2004. The enquiry was undertaken and enquiry officer found the charges to be proved. The notice of under Rule 14 of the Rules 1958 was given and finally the orders of dismissal were passed on 28.11.2005.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not oppose the impugned order on merits but at the outside makes a limited argument that the petitioner has rendered services from 12.12.1984 to 28.11.2005 and the charge made out against the petitioner is only for a period of 13 days absence, therefore, the lenient view may be taken and therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court only on the issue of quantum of punishment.;