VERMA, J. - (1.)THE petitioner is challenging the order of removal dated 24. 5. 1995 (Annexure-6) and all consequential orders.
(2.)THE petitioner who was initially appointed in the year 1971 as Civil Assistant Surgeon is qualified as M. S. (Gynaecology ). He was promoted as Junior Specialist in 1987. When he was posted at Postmortem Centre Sambherlake, District Jaipur, he was served with a charge-sheet on 3. 1. 1995 calling him to submit his reply or defence. He had asked for inspection of the documents. He was charge-sheeted for wilful absence from duty from 2. 10. 92 to 5. 8. 1993 when he was posted at Post-mortem Centre Taranagar District Churu. Charge-Sheets have been attached as Annexures-1 and 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had approached the department for supply of certain documents vide Annex-3, but he had received no response despite his repeated reminders, copies of which have been attached with the writ petition.
According to the petitioner he was transferred from Health Centre Losal (Sikar) to Taranagar (Churu) on 17. 8. 92. He had joined the new place and continued to perform his duties. He is said to have applied for casual leave in 1992 to Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer who sits at Churu at a distance of 150 Kms. because of renal trouble as he wanted to get treatment at Jaipur. There was small stone formation in the Kidney. According to the petitioner he had joined back at Taranagar on 6. 8. 93 vide Annex. 4a. He is said to have submitted all his medical documents also but in the mean time he stood transferred from Taranagar to Sambher vide Annex.-48. He was relieved on 10. 8. 93 and joined the new posting vide Annex. 4c and 4d. He had been reminding the department for regularisation of his leave. On 19. 1. 1996 he received a letter that he stood removed from service vide letter dated 18. 1. 1996 as per the direction of the respondent No. 1 passed on 24. 11. 1995, copy of such order is attached as Annex-5 to the writ petition. An exparte enquiry is said to have been held and by resorting to Rule 19 (ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 holding the enquiry was dispensed with.

It is the case of the petitioner that there was hardly any necessity to dispense with the holding of the enquiry as he was working at Sambher which fact was known to the respondents and therefore, removal of the petitioner from service either on exparte enquiry or dispensing of the enquiry was not in accordance with law. He submits that had some proper opportunity been given in the enquiry, he would have proved that he was suffering from the disease and was under treatment and the petitioner would have shown that no punishment was required to be inflicted on the petitioner or in any case the punishment of removal from service when he had put in more than 24 years of service was too excessive.

Separate replies have been filed on behalf of RPSC respondent No. 4 and the remaining respondents.

It is stated that the charge-sheet dated 31. 10. 1994 was issued to the petitioner and ultimately it was published in the news paper as well. As per reply filed, after applying for leave on 29. 9. 92 he remained absent from 2. 10. 92 to 5. 8. 93. He was transferred to Sambher on his own request. He was relieved from Taranagar and joined Sambher on 12. 8. 93 and it is stated that for the reason that he did not deny the charges of remaining absent for the period in question and, therefore, action under Rule 19 was taken for dispensing with the enquiry and the order of removal was imposed.

(3.)EVEN though the RPSC who is only to be consulted before removal was almost a pro-forma party, has also filed a detailed reply justifying the order of removal. As a matter of fact no allegations have been levelled against the RPSC and such RPSC was not at all a necessary party. Action of the disciplinary authority was being challenged and not of RPSC, but still the RPSC has filed a detailed reply as if it was the disciplinary or the competent authority itself by commenting on the conduct of the petitioner for remaining absent for the period in question. As a matter of fact the averments which should have been clarified by the remaining respondents has been illucidated by RPSC in detail.
The only question which remains to be decided in the present case is whether after issuance of the charge-sheet, it was necessary for the respondents to have held the enquiry and to give proper opportunity to the delinquent official.

Record was called for.