The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the absence was willful and the disciplinary process was properly followed, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of penalty order dated 31.08.2006, as well as the Appellate order dated 05.03.2008 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty of removal from service has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has come out with a case that he was appointed on the post of Constable in respondent-Department in the year 1984. He applied for Privilege Leave (P.L.) of 45 days, which was granted to him and accordingly he proceeded on sanctioned leave from 18.06.2004 for a period of 45 days. Thereafter on completion of the aforesaid leave period, he requested for extending the leave which was also sanctioned for 30 more days and accordingly he was required to report on duty on 01.09.2004. As per the petitioner unfortunately, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 302 of IPC, due to which, in order to seek legal advise and to avail remedies for his safeguard, he could not report on duty and remained absent for as many as 175 days.

3. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, Jaipur, issued one charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) levelling as many as three charges with regard to remaining willfully absent for as many as 175 days and during the period of absence, he did not give any information to the Higher Officers; nor has he ever tried to get the leave sanctioned. It was also alleged that he was habitual of remaining willfully absent and earlier also he has been penalized with minor and major penalties but he failed to show any improvement even thereafter.

4. Petitioner has also stated in his writ petition that on the basis of aforesaid charge-sheet, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, who found the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him and submitted enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority albeit afforded him personal hearing, yet only on the basis of conjectural findings given by the Enquiry Officer and without examining the record objectively, it was baselessly assumed that the petitioner was willfully absent and, therefore, quite harsh penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 31.08.2006.

5. The petitioner has also averred that against the penalty order dated 31.08.2006, he preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur, which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority without considering the grounds of appeal.

6. Thereafter, he submitted review petition for reviewing the penalty order, however, the Reviewing Authority did not grant any indulgence and the review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2010.

7. As per the petitioner, the penalty order, Appellate Order and orders passed in review are totally arbitrary and illegal liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. On receiving the notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition categorically denying the contents of the writ petition. It has been mentioned in reply to the writ petition that as the petitioner unauthorizedly over stayed even after completion of sanctioned leave period without giving any information to the Higher Authorities or without getting the leave sanctioned, which amounts to a serious misconduct, therefore, charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him. However, the petitioner did not file any reply to the charge-sheet. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry after affording complete opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted strictly as per procedure contemplated under the Rules and he was also granted full opportunity to defend himself as well as to cross examine the witnesses produced by the Management. The Enquiry Officer has meticulously dealt