Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.5.2002, whereby he was dismissed from the post of Chief Inspector (Adventure Sports and Tourism), and the order dated 15.6.2007 whereby his departmental appeal against the dismissal order was rejected.

2. In a nutshell the case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working on the said post, on 20.10.1999 he submitted an application for leave for sixty-six days from 27.10.1999 to 31.12.1999. He had to go on leave as his wife was working as a Doctor in Trinidad in West Indies. In the said application, he had clearly mentioned his wife's address i Trinidad. Since the application was forwarded by the Manager, Transport Division, R.T.D.C., Jaipur, therefore, he was under a bona fide impression that the leave prayed by him would be granted. But instead of granting the leave, vide order dated 2.12.1999, the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, the said order was never served upon the petitioner. Upon his return from Trinidad, the petitioner tried to join back his duties. However, he was informed that he has been placed under suspension. Vide order dated 26.2.2000, he was served with a charge-sheet wherein two charges were levelled against him: firstly, he was absent from duty without sanctioned leave for a period of sixty-six days; secondly, he had gone to a foreign country without permission of the competent authority. The petitioner immediately filed a detailed reply wherein he pointed out that he had to leave the country because of compelling family circumstances, namely that his wife had to be settled in a new country far away from home. Therefore, his absence was not out of choice, but out of necessity. He had further claimed that his application for leave had been duly forwarded by the Manager. Since he was not informed about the rejection of his application for leave by the Corporation, he was under a bona fide impression that his leave had been sanctioned. Hence, his absence was not a willful one. But notwithstanding the said reply, on 27.8.2000, he was served with a show-cause notice along with the inquiry report. On 19.8.2000, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. Meanwhile, again certain family circumstances arose for which the petitioner was found to proceed to Trinidad. Therefore, he again applied for leave to go to the said destination. The leave was immediately, sanctioned vide order dated 28.7.2000. Therefore, the petitioner proceeded to Trinidad in August 2000. While in Trinidad he fell ill. Therefore, he sent an application for extension of his leave along with a medical certificate. While in Trinidad, the petitioner received a letter on 17.8.2001 wherein he was asked to appear for personal hearing. Immediately, vide letter dated 28.8.2001, he informed the Corporation that he is not in a position to appear personally as he continues to be ill. Upon his return, the petitioner tried to join his positing. However, on 17.5.2002, he was surprised to received an order dated 14.5.2002 whereby he was dismissed from the service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order dated 14.5.2002. However, the appeal was not decided for three years. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.9.2005 praying that his appeal be decided as soon as possible. Since the Department was sitting quietly over his appeal, therefore, the petitioner eventually filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B.C.W.P. No. 858/2007. Thus, for four and a half years, the Corporation maintained a studied silence over the appeal. Finally, vide order dated 15.3.2007, this Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's appeal within a period of three months. Vide order dated 15.6.2007, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document