Dhani Dhabasawali, near Dhani Ranijiwali, Shahpura, Jaipur v. Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel with Mr. Saumil Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/08/2025

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.02.2001 issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Jaipur, whereby, services of the petitioner have been terminated under Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1951’), instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. It has been contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade- III vide order dated 05.11.1963 and his services were confirmed vide order dated 25.04.1964. In July, 2000, on account of some private dispute, FIR No. 369/2000 was lodged by some private persons, in which, the petitioner was also implicated as accused and in order to pursue his legal rights, the petitioner could not remain [2025:RJ-JP:30961] (2 of 5) [CW-2154/2001] present in the school to discharge his duties. It has been contended that the petitioner had also submitted leave applications dated

10.07.2000 and 11.07.2000.

3. It is also submitted that on account of aforesaid criminal case, despite filing anticipatory bail application, in which the petitioner remained unsuccessful, he had to surrender and ultimately, bail was granted to him under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by this Court, pursuant to which the petitioner was released from custody on 30.03.2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not receive any notice under Section 86 of the Rules of

1951. However, while the petitioner was in judicial custody, he could learn that order dated 12.02.2001 had been passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Jaipur, whereby, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever and merely on account of publishing one notice in newspaper, namely, Jaipur Mahanagar Times dated

19.01.2001, services of the petitioner were terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a substantive employee and his services could not have been terminated without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’). Thus, the order terminating services of the petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that being substantive employee of the respondent-department, it was duty of [2025:RJ-JP:30961] (3 of 5) [CW-2154/2001] the petitioner to attend the school regularly and he could not have proceeded on leave without proper approval/sanction of the same. In the instant case, the petitioner has deliberately and willfully absented from the duties, therefore, last notice dated 27.12.2000 was published in newspaper calling upon the petitioner to join his duties and when he did not join, finding no other alternative, appointing authority has dismissed him from service vide order dated 12.02.2001. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It appears from perusal of the order sheets of this case that vide order dated 08.05.2001 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2088/2001 filed along with instant writ petition, operation of termination order dated 12.02.2001 (Annexure-10) was stayed qua the petitioner and this Court has been informed that pursuant to such stay order, the petitioner continued till the date of his superannuation and he is being paid provisional pension.

8. Rule 86 of the Rules of 1951 deals with unauthorised and deliberate absence from duty. Since the impugned action has been taken by the respondents under Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951, it would be relevant to reproduce the same as under: “Rule 86. Absence after expiry of leave:(1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) above the disciplinary authority may initiate departmental proceeding under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against a Government servant who willfully remains absent from duty [2025:RJ-JP:30961] (4 of 5) [CW-2154/2001] for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of willful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service.”

9. Bare perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it abundantly clear that no action under Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 can be taken by the Government without initiating disciplinary enquiry under the Rules of 1958. Admittedly, in the instant case, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondents. Therefore, it is apparent that impugned order dated 12.02.2001 has been passed in quite arbitrary manner as also in violation of Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951 and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Even otherwise, on perusal of alleged notice dated 27.12.2000, as referred to in impugned order dated 12.02.2001, which was said to have been published in newspaper calling upon the petitioner to join his duties, this Court finds that notice dated 27.12.2000 was published by the respondent-District Education Officer, Elementary Jaipur-Second, Jaipur in daily newspaper dated 19.01.2001 and said publication was also made in Jaipur Mahanagar Times whereas the petitioner is resident of rural area of Dhani Dhabasawali, near Dhani Ranijiwali, Shahpura, Jaipur. Apparently, aforesaid newspaper, i.e., Jaipur Mahanagar Times might not have its circulation in the aforesaid rural area. In addition to above, it is also significant to observe that in order to take any action under Rules 86 of the Rules of 1951, it is incumbent upon the respondents to establish that the alleged absence was willful and deliberate. However, in the facts of instant case, where on account of criminal case lodged by private persons in respect of some dispute, the petitioner had to take legal [2025:RJ-JP:30961] (5 of 5) [CW-2154/2001] remedies for protecting his liberty and also remained under judicial custody. Even on the date when impugned order dated 12.02.2001 was passed, he was behind the bars, therefore, under such circumstances, petitioner’s absence cannot be termed either willful or deliberate.

11. Be that as it may, since order dated 12.02.2001 has been passed without conducting any disciplinary enquiry and in violation of Rule 86(3) of the Rules of 1951, this Court holds termination order dated 12.02.2001 as arbitrary and illegal qua the petitioner.

12. Resultantly, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 12.02.2001 is, hereby, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. Since the petitioner was superannuated during pendency of writ petition, this Court directs that he shall be entitled for all the pensionary and other benefits in accordance with law consequent upon quashing of order dated 12.02.2001 qua the petitioner. Necessary compliance shall be made by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J