STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RANVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition bearing No. 2418 of 1995 whereby the respondent-Ranvir Singh who had been a Constable in the IVth Battalian of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC for short) and was removed from service on the charge of wilful absence from duty for more than a period of one year, has been ordered to be reinstated in service but without backwages. However, the period of his absence from duty has been ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave and this period has further been ordered to be considered for the purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge has further desired that the conduct of the respondent be watched so that he should be put on duty befitting his medical status. Thus the order of removal of the respondent from service of the Commandant IVth Battalian, RAC, Jaipur, was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

(2.) THE aforesaid order of removal dated 30. 4. 1982 had been passed against the respondent after-an enquiry was held against him and a finding was recorded that he had remained wilfully absent from duty ever since 29. 10. 1980 and yet never cared to submit any application or conveyed any information to the concerned officer regarding the reasons for his absence. THE RAC, IVth Bn. , therefore, had initiated a proceeding against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal),rules, 1958 and a notice alongwith a charge-sheet with statement of allegations was served personally on the respondent on 16. 11. 1981 on which he had affixed his signature acknowledging the receipt of the papers. THE respondent, however, did not participate in the enquiry proceeding inspite of service of notice and hence the enquiry proceeded ex-parte against him, wherein it was recorded that the respondent for the first time had submitted the application about his leave on 28th of November,1981 with medical certificate which also was not worth accepting as it appeared to be fake since it had not been issued on a printed letter head and was signed by an Ayurvedic practitioner. Besides this the respondent also did not submit any prescription or any bill of medicine to believe about his illness. A conclusion, therefore, was drawn that the respondent's story regarding his mental illness was an after-thought which was set- up merely as his defence to explain his absence from duty. THE respondent, however, had also submitted an application on 26. 12. 1981 regarding his illness but that was not supported by any medical certificate nor it declared that it will be supported with medical certificate later. After considering the entire aspects, the enquiry report was submitted against the respondent stating that he remained absent from duty for more than a year without prior "permission and left the headquarters without sanction of leave which amounted to disobedience of service rules which was bound to have affect on the public service as also on the discipline of other Government servants. THEreafter, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the respondent regarding the proposed punishment and an order of his removal from service was then passed on 30. 4. 1982 against which the departmental appeal failed.

(3.) THE appellant-State of Rajasthan through the Commandant IVth Bn. , RAC, Jaipur feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has preferred this appeal on the ground that the impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse, illegal and arbitrary as the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact recorded in the enquiry report as it was clearly proved that the respondent remained wilfully absent from duty eversince 29. 10. 1980 due to which a charge-sheet dated 16. 11. 1981 was served upon him and an enquiry officer was appointed, yet the respondent did not participate in the enquiry proceeding after which an enquiry report was submitted. It was contended inter alia that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer regarding willful absence from duty for a sufficiently long period without cogent reasons was not fit to be interfered with and did not deserve any sympathy for his reinstatement in service as it was not dispro- portionate looking into the grave nature of charge. It was also submitted that once the complete procedure was followed by the appellant-State before passing the order of removal, wherein a finding had been recorded by the enquiry officer regarding the respondent's wilful absence from duty, the same could not have been treated as perverse, so as to interfere with it and set it aside. It was still further submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the order of punishment imposed against the delinquent once the charges were held to have been proved. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant relied upon several authorities of the Supreme Court. THE first decision cited is State of U. P. and Ors. vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & Anr. (1), wherein it was contended by the delinquent-respondent that in view of the finding given by the enquiry officer that five charges are proved and in view of the fact that Charges 1,3,4 & 5 could not be gone into due to non-availment of oppor- tunity on the part of the respondent, it could not be predicted with certainty that the disciplinary authority would have passed the order of removal from service on the basis of charge No. 2 alone. This contention of the respondent was rejected and allow- ing the appeal of the State of U. P. , the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that it is settled law that the court of appeal could not go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the misconduct proved against him. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the Court.