ORDER

1. Leave granted. While he was posted as Chief Inspector in the Mount Abu office of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), the respondent submitted an application for grant of leave for 66 days from 27.10.1999 to 31.12.1999 by stating that he was to go to Trinidad, West Indies to meet his wife, who was working there as a doctor. The application of the respondent was forwarded to the competent authority. However, before the leave could be sanctioned, the respondent went abroad and that too without seeking permission from the concerned authority. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.12.1999 and was served with charge sheet dated 26.2.2000 for holding an enquiry under the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules") on the charges of remaining absent from duty and going to a foreign country without taking permission from the competent authority.

2. The respondent neither filed reply to the charge sheet nor joined duty. Instead, he sent an application for extension of leave. His request was rejected vide telegram dated 28.2.2000. On the next day, the respondent reported for duty. After one month, he filed reply dated 22.3.2000 and pleaded that his absence was due to reasons beyond his control inasmuch as he had to leave the country to settle his wife at Trinidad, West Indies.

3. Shri S.M. Kedwal, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, submitted report with the finding that both the charges are proved against the respondent. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the respondent along with show cause notice dated 27.8.2000.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondent again applied for leave for one year with effect from 1.8.2000. This time, the officers of the Corporation including its Executive Director exhibited extraordinary sympathy with the respondent, which resulted in sanction of leave on 28.7.2000 for a period of 90 days subject to the following conditions:

"1. He will not stay more than the period of leave sanctioned as above.

2. He will not accept any assignment in any foreign country.

3. He will not apply for extension of leave while abroad.

4. He will not apply for seeking voluntary retirement while abroad.

5. He will not delay the process of D.E. Pending against him."

5. In terms of the sanction, the respondent was required to report for duty at the end of 90 days period but he did not do so and sent repeated representations for extension of leave by putting forward one or the other excuse. He submitted joining report on 15.5.2002 i.e. after more than one year and six months of the expiry of the sanctioned leave.

6. During the interregnum, notice dated 17.8.2001 was sent to the respondent requiring him to appear for personal hearing. He responded to the notice vide letter dated 28.8.2001 and expressed his inability to come to India by pretending illness. Therefore, after considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 14.5.2002 and dismissed the respondent from service.

7. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of dismissal from service remained pending for almost five years and was disposed of by the appellate authority i.e. the Board Committee only when a direction to this effect was issued by the High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.858/2007. The Board Committee dismissed the appeal on 15.6.2007 by observing that the misconduct found proved against the respondent was serious and there was no warrant for reducing the punishment.

8. The respondent challenged the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities in Writ Petition No.5665 of 2007 mainly on the ground that the punishment of dismissal from service was arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved. The respondent also pleaded that his absence of duty was not deliberate and that he could not report for duty due to reasons beyond his control.

9. The learned Single