The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for habitual absenteeism, affirming that judicial review does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or findings of the disciplinary authority.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J.

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by petitioner wayback on 28.05.2014, impugning the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Director General, Prisons Rajasthan, Jaipur, dismissing the petitioner from service, following the enquiry report pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, to remain absent from duty as Prahari in jail from 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004, without giving intimation and submitting any leave application.

2. It has been noticed by this Court that though the writ petition has been filed after a delay of near about 7 years, which is not well explained, however, considering the nature of punishment of removal from services, this Court is deciding the writ petition on merits as well.

3. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner challenged the order of removal dated 06.10.2007, by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and his appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2008, but the order dated 26.05.2008 has not been challenged in the instant writ petition. A copy of order dated 26.05.2008, shown by the counsel for petitioner, is taken on record on her oral request.

4. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is a case where apart from charges of absenteeism from duty for a period from 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004, under the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, as per the service record of petitioner, he was found to be a habitual absentee. Petitioner remained absent from duty for the following periods:-

(i) 19.08.1999 to 29.09.1999;

(ii) 20.04.2000 to 12.05.2000;

(iii) 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004; (For which the present charge-sheet was issued)

(iv) 28.04.2004 to 23.07.2004; and (v) 05.09.2005 to 27.03.2006

6. It is also undisputed that for the previous periods of absenteeism, petitioner was also served with other charge-sheets and he was punished with penalties of censure as also stoppage of three annual grade increment and ultimately, pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, he has been punished with the penalty of removal from service.

7. Counsel for petitioner made a persuasive attempt to urge that in-fact petitioner was suffering from mental illness of Schizophrenia and was undergoing medical treatment by the Psychiatrist, hence for such reason, he could not report on his duty and his absenteeism may not be treated as deliberate and willful. In support thereof, few of the medical prescriptions of the Psychiatrist, have been placed on record.

8. Having considered the contentions of counsel for petitioner and the fact findings recorded in the impugned order, which are based on the service record of petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004. Even, at one point of time, petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer i.e. on 03.01.2005, but he neither chose to file reply to the charge-sheet, nor adduced any evidence. Petitioner did not produce any of the medical prescriptions before the Enquiry Officer, as have been placed before this Court, to explain reasons of his absenteeism from service. That apart, indisputably, for the previous period of absenteeism, petitioner has been saddled with penalties of censure and stoppage of three annual grade increment and petitioner has been guilty of absenteeism time and again, without sanction of leave.

9. The Disciplinary Authority, in the impugned order dated 06.10.2007, has clearly observed that the services of petitioner as Prahari in jail, require discipline and his repeatedly absent from the duty, that too without giv