NENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 22. 1. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 16. 12. 1996 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 District Education Officer (Primary Education), Barmer by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with w. e. f. 11. 3. 1996 on the ground of wilful absence from duties stating that the charges under Rules 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the RSR") and under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") against the petitioner were proved, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to take the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Physical Teacher and he joined his duty on 19. 11. 1985 at Government Secondary School, Padru. Due to some family and personal reasons, the petitioner had to take leave from the School to took after his grand-father and so he moved an application for leave and also sought permission to leave headquarter on 11. 3. 1996. A copy of the said leave application dated 11. 3. 1996 addressed to the respondent No. 4 Head Master, Government Upper Primary School, Santra (Barmer) is marked as Annex. 1. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he was continuously submitting applications for extension of leave from time to time to the respondent No. 4 Head Master and when on 12. 12. 1996, he submitted the application to the respondent No. 4 Head Master, the respondent No. 4 Head Master advised him that in future he should submit the application to the respondent No. 2 District Education Officer. THEreafter, he submitted the applications, as desired by the respondent No. 4 Head Master, but through application dated 16. 12. 1996 (Annex. 2), the petitioner verified from the respondent No. 4 Head Master whether his previous applicants were received by the respondent No. 4 or not and according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 Head Master on 16. 12. 1996 replied that all previous applications submitted by the petitioner on 26. 4. 1996, 29. 6. 1996, 31. 8. 1996, 2. 11. 1996 and 12. 12. 1996 were received by him and they were also on office record of School. THE further case of the petitioner is that as per the advice of respondent No. 4 Head Master, from December, 1996 onwards, he submitted applications for leave to the respondent No. 2 District Education Officer from time to time and his applications were never rejected nor any notice was given to him by the respondents that his leave had been cancelled. Thus, upto 12. 12. 1996, he sent leave applications to the respondent No. 4 Head Master and, thereafter, he sent the leave applications to the respondent No. 4 Head Master and, thereafter, he sent the leave applications to the respondent No. 2 District Education Officer and the details of leave applications are given in para 6 of the writ petition. THE further case of the petitioner is that his grand-father died in the month of May, 2001 and when he went to School on 1. 7. 2001 for joining duties, he was told that his services had already been terminated through order dated 16. 12. 1996 (Annex. 3 ). In this petition, that order Annex. 3 dated 16. 12. 1996 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 11. 3. 1996 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows : (i) That the impugned order Annex. 3 was passed without holding enquiry under the provisions of CCA Rules or RSR and thus, the impugned order Annex. 3 cannot be sustained. (ii) That no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order Annex. 3 and therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case and thus, from this point of view also, the impugned order Annex. 3 cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their submissions are as follows :- (i) That after 11. 3. 1996 till the date of passing of impugned order Annex. 3 i. e. 16. 12. 1996, the petitioner did not move any application seeking leave or extension of leave period and furthermore, Annex. 2 is a manipulated document. (ii) That through letters Annex. R/1 dated 15. 6. 1996 and Annex. R/2 dated 6. 7. 1996, the petitioner was informed about his absence from duties and he was asked to submit reply, but he did not submit any reply. Similarly, through another letter Annex. R/3 dated 22. 7. 1996, the petitioner was asked to join the duties, but he did not join nor he submitted the reply. Thus, opportunity was given to the petitioner, he did not file any reply and therefore, impugned order Annex. 3 is perfect in law. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that since 11. 3. 1996 till today, the petitioner is not on duty.