ANAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 9. 8. 2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dtd. 11. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/39) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner was treated to have abandoned the service with effect from 28. 7. 83 and therefore his name was deleted from the role of Medical Officer be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon vide order dtd. 3. 9. 80 (Annex. 1) on urgent and temporary basis. ii) That the petitioner was thereafter selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon against the substantive vacancy of the Civil Assistant Surgeon. A selection list dtd. 20. 12. 80 (Annex. P/2) was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in which the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 10. iii) That in pursuance of the select list dtd. 20. 12. 80 (Annex. P/2), vide order dtd. 26. 3. 81 (Annex. P/3), the petitioner was allowed to work at the Govt. Dispensary, Lakhasar (Churu ). iv) That vide order dtd. 27. 6. 81, the petitioner was transferred from Govt. Dispensary, Lakhasar to P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner. v) That while the petitioner was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Bikaner, he was sent on deputation for one year to Vivekanand Swasthya Samiti, Bhadra, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) vide order dtd. 18. 9. 82 (Annex. P/5 ). vi) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of order dtd. 18. 9. 82 (Annex. P/5), the petitioner was relieved on 30. 10. 82 from PBM Hospital, Bikaner and joined at the Samiti on 1. 11. 82. A copy of joining report is marked as Annex. P/6. vii) That on 28. 10. 83, the Samiti wrote a letter (Annex. P/7) to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department (respondent No. 1) that the deputation of Dr. Anand Jain might be extended for a further period of 3 years. viii) That the petitioner also gave his consent vide letter dtd. 28. 10. 83 (Annex. P/8) for extension of his deputation period with the Samiti. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of letter dtd. 28. 10. 83 (Annex. P/7) written by the Samiti, no communication was addressed by the respondents either to the petitioner or to the Samiti. x) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner wrote a letter dtd. 12. 12. 83 (Annex. P/9) to the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur requesting him that either the Samiti be directed to relieve him or his period of deputation be extended. xi) Further case of the petitioner is that he again wrote a letter 28. 12. 83 (Annex. P/10) to the Director, Medical and Health Services (respondent No. 2) and the Secretary, Department of Medical and Health (respondent No. 1) with the above request. Similarly he again wrote a letter dtd. 12. 9. 85 (Annex. P/11) to the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Services) with the same request. xii) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter he wrote a letter dtd. 13. 9. 89 (Annex. P/12) to the respondents requesting that either his period of deputation be extended or the Samiti be directed to relieve him. NOTE: With effect from 12. 9. 85 to 13. 9. 89, no communication was addressed by the petitioner to the respondents as per the case of the petitioner xiii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was relieved by the Samiti vide its letter dtd. 26. 9. 95 (Annex. P/13) and this letter was sent by the Samiti to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department (respondent No. 1 ). xiv) Further case of the petitioner is that Secretary of the Samiti issued a attendance certificate dtd. 26. 9. 95 (Annex. P/14) certifying that the petitioner had worked with the Samiti from 1. 11. 82 to 26. 9. 95. xv) Further case of the petitioner is that on being relied by the Samiti with effect from 26. 9. 95, his father fell ill and therefore, he sent his joining report to the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Services) vide letter dtd. 6. 10. 95 (Annex. P/15) through U. P. C. NOTE: This joining report dtd. 6. 10. 95 (Annex. P/15) was sent through post and the petitioner did not report himself on duty even after he was relieved by the Samiti on 26. 9. 95. xvi) Further case of the petitioner is that his father expired on 12. 11. 95 and due to death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 13. 11. 95 (Annex. P/16) for granting him leave for two months. This application was also sent through post. xvii) Further case of the petitioner is that through applications dtd. 8. 1. 96, 3. 4. 96, 2. 7. 96, 8. 10. 96, 10. 4. 97, 7. 10. 97, 2. 4. 98, 5. 10. 98, 5. 4. 99, 4. 10. 99, 9. 4. 2000, 5. 9. 2000, 30. 3. 2001 (Annex. P/17 to P/29), the petitioner sought leave. xviii) Further case of the petitioner is that through letter dtd. 17. 8. 2001 (Annex. P/30), the petitioner himself reported for duty before the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Services. ). NOTE: Thus, after being relieved from the Samiti on 26. 9. 95, the petitioner did not report himself on duty and sent various applications through posts for grant of leave and thus, he remained on leave from 26. 9. 95 to 17. 8. 2001 as per his own case. xix) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter on 7. 9. 2001, the petitioner again reported for duty before the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Services.) Copy of joining report is marked as Annex. P/31. xx) Further case of the petitioner is that though he submitted joining report on 17. 8. 2001 and 7. 9. 2001 before respondent No. 2, but even then he was not allowed to join his duties. THErefore, he submitted an application dtd. 21. 9. 2001 (Annex/p/32) making a request to the respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical and Health Service) to permit him to join the duties. xxi) Further case of the petitioner is that he sent reminders dtd. 16. 2. 2002, 25. 3. 2002, 10. 4. 2002, 24. 4. 2002, 30. 5. 2002 and 10. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/33 to P/38 respectively ). Thus, even upto 10. 6. 2002, the petitioner was not taken on duty. xxii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 11. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/39), the respondents treated the petitioner to have voluntarily abandoned the service with effect from 28. 7. 83 and, therefore, his name was deleted from the services of the respondents. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. xxiii) Further case of the petitioner is that vide orders dtd. 23. 12. 98, 27. 9. 99 and 4. 5. 2000 (Annex. P/40 to P/42 respectively), similarly situated persons were taken back on duty, therefore, he should also have been taken back on duty.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 18. 9. 82 (Annex. P/5), the petitioner was sent on deputation for one year to the Samiti. THERE is also no dispute on the point that through jointing report dtd. 1. 11. 82 (Annex. P/6), the petitioner joined his duties with the Samiti.