AHSAN AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is pending for admission since 1998 and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 22.10.1998, which is Annexure-10 in the compilation, passed by the disciplinary authority, be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the transfer order passed by the appellate authority may also be quashed and set aside by which the decision of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk vide order dated o 13.4.1980 and after rendering services for sometime in the Collectorate, the petitioner was declared surplus and' he was absorbed in the Department of Education i.e. in Government Secondary School, Chhan. The petitioner at the relevant time had put in about four years of service and thereafter, he proceeded on leave from 22.8.1984 till 7.9.1984. It is the case of the petitioner that he was 5 suffering from 'Huma-a-Sarsamiya', and in view of the same, he remained absent since 08.09.1984. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the service rules on the aforesaid ground of remaining unauthorizedly absent from the duty. The disciplinary authority, by the impugned order dated 22.10.1988, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the o petitioner had remained absent from the duty continuously from 8.9.1984. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was sick, he could not resume his duty for all these years and that initially he had submitted an application for leave. It is further submitted that before passing the impugned order of termination, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the absence period of the petitioner be treated as on leave without pay and he may be reinstated in the service. It is submitted that because of serious illness i.e. mental illness, the petitioner was prevented from resuming his duties and the department has power under the service rules to reinstate the petitioner in service and treating the absence period as on leave without pay.