(1.) This is a unique case where the petitioner has treated the public exchequer as a bounty and stack his claim to share the same.
(2.) Petitioner, who is doctor, got sanctioned thirty-two days leave; went to Middle East and came back after more than 11 years. He claimed to continue as a Government servant and filed an application for voluntary retirement; approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") for seeking redressal for retiral benefits on the ground of deemed acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. The Tribunal, having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as there was no impugned order rejecting his application for voluntary retirement or denying him the retiral benefits, passed an order in his favour. Subsequently, the State Government, treating the petitioner to be still in public service, initiated disciplinary proceeding against him for remaining absent after coming back from abroad, though there was no order of joining his duties and proceeded ex-parte against him as the petitioner did not consider it proper to join the inquiry treating himself to be a retired employee of the State and the State terminated his service. This shows a complete apathy also on the part of the Tribunal and the State as how they have acted without any sense of responsibility and what was the occasion for the State to treat the petitioner in service if he remained absent without leave for more than 11 years as absence for such a long period could give rise to presumption of voluntarily abandonment of service, terminating the bonds of privity of service, bringing an end to the relationship of "master" and servant"
(3.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on regular basis, vide order dated 14.3.69. He stood confirmed vide order dated 1.7.71. Vide order dated 3.4.79, he was sanctioned leave for three months only. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.4.79, he also applied for leave for 32 days, i.e. from 29.4.79 to 31.5.79 on account of personal work. Subsequently, he also applied for leave from 1.6.80 to 31.12.81 but his application was not even processed/considered and no order was passed. thereon. Petitioner came back after eleven years and seven months on 1.1.91 and though there is no order on record but he claimed that he was put under Order of Awaiting Posting on 3.9.91, a legal notice was served upon the respondents that petitioner should be given posting. There is nothing on record to show as what happened, but it appears that petitioner had filed some application for voluntary retirement and as no order was passed thereon, he approached the Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 205/94, which was decided on 23.12.95, directing that his absence from 1.6.79 to 21.6.2 be treated as extraordinary leave and other reliefs were also granted. As the order was not complied with contempt application was file before the Tribunal, wherein, an order of grant of pension was made and it was further observed that in case the order is not complied with, the contempt matter would be referred to the High Court, as is evident from the order dated 7.3.2000. Neither the petitioner nor the representative of the State pointed out to the Tribunal that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner as per the charge-sheet dated 12.10.95 for remaining wilful absent without leave from 12.7.92, Inspite of all the orders, the disciplinary proceedings continued and in pursuance of the same, the impugned order dated 7.4.2000 has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner and subsequently withdrawing other benefits vide order dated 31. 2001. Hence this petition.