1. Petitioner challenged declaration of absence period as dies non for service benefits after disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 6 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Neelam Gehlot W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Director, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2794 of 2017
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Important Points
Courts should not interfere with disciplinary findings or re-appreciate evidence unless there is a manifest violation of natural justice or legal error. Willful absence without valid medical certification under service rules justifies treating the period as dies-non for all service benefits.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rules 59, 76, 83, and 86 - Leave not a matter of right - Willful absence from duty - Period treated as dies-non - Forfeiture of service benefits including annual increments, leave, and pension (Paras 15, 17 and 19)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts should not act as appellate authorities in departmental proceedings - Interference permissible only in case of clear violation of principles of natural justice, lack of evidence, or error of law - Courts should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings of the disciplinary authority (Paras 11 and 12)
(C) Equity and Sympathy - Sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor permissible in law for granting relief in service matters (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A government employee remained absent from duty for over two decades alleging illness. Despite subsequent transfers and being made permanent during the period of absence, the employee did not report for duty until a court order intervened. Following the employee's return, a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, which found the absence to be willful and unjustified. Consequently, the disciplinary authority declared the period of absence as dies-non for all service benefits.
Findings of Court:
The employee failed to produce valid medical certificates from competent medical officers to justify the prolonged absence. The absence was found to be voluntary and in violation of the prescribed service rules. The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed due process and offered the employee a fair opportunity to explain their conduct, thus adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the order treating the period of unauthorized absence as dies-non was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the absence was willful and not supported by valid medical documentation as required by service rules, and because the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, there is no manifest violation of legal principles or procedural fairness to warrant judicial interference in the factual findings of the disciplinary authority.
Result: Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts should not act as appellate authorities in departmental proceedings - Interference permissible only in case of clear violation of principles of natural justice, lack of evidence, or error of law - Courts should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings of the disciplinary authority (Paras 11 and 12)
(C) Equity and Sympathy - Sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor permissible in law for granting relief in service matters (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A government employee remained absent from duty for over two decades alleging illness. Despite subsequent transfers and being made permanent during the period of absence, the employee did not report for duty until a court order intervened. Following the employee's return, a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, which found the absence to be willful and unjustified. Consequently, the disciplinary authority declared the period of absence as dies-non for all service benefits.
Findings of Court:
The employee failed to produce valid medical certificates from competent medical officers to justify the prolonged absence. The absence was found to be voluntary and in violation of the prescribed service rules. The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed due process and offered the employee a fair opportunity to explain their conduct, thus adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the order treating the period of unauthorized absence as dies-non was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the absence was willful and not supported by valid medical documentation as required by service rules, and because the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, there is no manifest violation of legal principles or procedural fairness to warrant judicial interference in the factual findings of the disciplinary authority.
Result: Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- article 226 (Para 22)
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Punit Sighvi, Suhani Singh
For the Respondents: Akash Guar, Aditya Sharma
For the Appellants : Punit Sighvi, Suhani Singh
For the Respondents: Akash Guar, Aditya Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed illness prevented duty and denial of natural justice; respondent argued no medical proof and wilful absence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioner wilfully absent without justifying medical evidence; disciplinary authority's findings supported by rules and evidence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 )
4. Courts should not interfere in disciplinary findings unless violation of natural justice or lack of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no interference with order treating absence period as dies non. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters?
Courts should not act as appellate authorities and must refrain from interfering unless there is clear violation of natural justice or lack of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Can wilful absence without leave be regularized under service rules?
No, under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, wilful absence amounts to interruption of service and forfeiture of past service unless regularized by competent authority on satisfactory reasons. (Para 17 )
8. Is leave a matter of right for a government servant?
No, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right; discretion is reserved to the authority empowered to grant leave under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. (Para 15 )
9. What is the evidentiary requirement for medical leave?
Medical leave requires submission of a medical certificate from a competent medical officer and a fitness certificate before resuming duty as per Rules 76 and 83 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. (Para 15 , 16 )
10. Can courts grant relief based on sympathy rather than legal merit?
No, sympathy or misplaced generosity cannot be a factor; courts must decide based on legal principles and not leniency. (Para 20 )
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-
"i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner may be called for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
ii) by an appropriate writ, order directions the impugned action of the respondents of passing the impugned order without appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be declared as arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 of declaring the services of the petitioner for the period from 04.08.1990 to 29.08.2011 as dies non for all service benefits like annual pay Increment, leave benefit, pension etc. may kindly be quashed and set aside. Further, the respondents may be directed to give notional benefits to the petitioner for the said period.
iv) by an appropriate writ, order directions the, action of the respondents of not allowing her to join services despite several communication, legal notices and even after filing of the writ petition till interim order was granted may kindly be deprecated in strongest terms. Further, the respondents may be saddled with heavy cost for causing harassment.
v) Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner;
vi) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Lady Supervisor Grade-III on 26.06.1986 in the Office of Project Officer, Jaitaran, District Pali. He further submitted that the petitioner fell seriously ill and was unable to attend the duties, and she has sent an application for medical leave. He further submitted that the petitioner remained continuously ill up to 27.08.1992 and when the petitioner approached the office of the Project Officer to resume her duties, then she was not allowed to join. He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted several representations and letters but she was not allowed to join. He further submitted that a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against her and was forced to file a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, wherein after intervention of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to join on duty. He also referred the order passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble court on 23.09.2013 and submitted that after disposal of the writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, but the period from 04.08.1990 to 29.08.2011 was treated as dies-non, which is contrary to the facts of the case. He also submitted that after a legal notice, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the year 2006 and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, but still the period from 2003 onwards, in particular, from 2006 to 2011, cannot be treated as dies-non.
3. Learned counsel submitted that declaration of the period as dies non will affect her entitlement for annual increment, leave and pension benefits. He also submitted that the disciplinary authority has violated the basic principles of administrative law and also of natural justice before arriving at a conclusion to declare the entire period as dies-non. He also referred the material and submitted that from 04.08.1990 the petitioner was severely ill and medical leave can be sanctioned, but thereafter, she was not permitted to join on 28.08.1992, though, she was transferred on 12.08.1992 to Ahore. At last, he submitted that the order is itself without any basis and against all norms, therefore, same be quashed and set aside.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and submitted that earlier writ petition filed by petitioner was disposed on 23.09.2013 and the petitioner has filed a DB Special Appeal (Writ), but same was also dismissed. He further submitte
