GANPAT Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow:

(2.) A notice dtd. 16/12/2011 was served to the petitioner attributing allegations of undisciplined behaviour. The petitioner claims to have offered reply/explanation to the notice. A memorandum proposing initiation of departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, was served to the petitioner on 16/3/2012 for alleged misconduct while discharging duty and of remaining absent from duty without intimation. Repeated notices were served to the petitioner for furnishing the explanation and for personal hearing. The petitioner replied to the notices denying the allegations set out therein and claimed that he was ailing and that is why, he could not report for duty on some occasions. An order dtd. 22/6/2013 was issued whereby, ad hoc services of the petitioner were not continued.

(3.) The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to the respondents on 4/7/2013 being aggrieved of the non-extension of his services to which, a communication dtd. 11/9/2013 was received that the representation had been filed. The petitioner made another representation to the respondents on 30/7/2013 claiming that his termination was illegal and that persons similarly situated to him had been afforded extension of service and as a consequence, he too was entitled to be reinstated on the post with consequential regularization in service. However, no response whatsoever was given to the said representation of the petitioner on which, he has preferred the instant writ petition for assailing the impugned action and with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularize his services.