SAYEED MOHAMMED SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure -8 dated 4th January, 2006 and also a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed by the Medical & Health Department of State of Rajasthan on the post of Medical Officer Department of State of Rajasthan on the post of Medical Officer on ad hoc basis in the year 1988. The petitioner underwent the process of selection through Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the RPSC" hereinafter) and was subsequently, appointed on the post of a Medical Officer in the year 1990. By order Annexure -1 dated 18th December, 1996, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia after the sanction having been accorded for such deputation by his Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan. In the order Annexure -1, it has been made clear that the period of deputation is of one year with effect from the date of his relieving. It has further been made clear that in no case he or she will stay beyond the period of deputation without prior permission of the Government of India and the respondent -Department of Medical & Health (FW). It has also been made clear that the resignation while abroad will not be accepted in any circumstances. Apart from these, other conditions were also mentioned therein regarding Pay and Allowances, Lien, Medical Attendance, Leave, Joining Time Pay, Leave Salary, Pension Contribution etc. In pursuance of the order Annexure -1, the petitioner, came to be relieved by order dated 25th May, 1997 passed by the Superintendent, Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur vide Annexure -2. The petitioner jointed his services at King Fahad College Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for extension of his deputation period through the competent Authority at the King Fahad College, Riyadh to the Indian Embassy in Saudi Arabia and on such request having been processed, the deputation period of the petitioner was extended for a further period of one year by the respondent -Department vide order Annexure -3 dated 30th June, 1998 on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the order Annexure -1. The petitioner again requested for extension of his deputation period through the same agency as in the case of Annexure -3 by his letter dated 8th May, 1999. However, no further extension was granted to the petitioner by the respondents and the request of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government, which was informed to the Indian Embassy vide communication dated 25th June, 1999. The petitioner again made efforts for extension of deputation period but he was again informed that the period of deputation cannot be extended and he was required to join the duty in the respondent Department vide communication dated 22nd October, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner received communication dated 25th July, 2001 Issued by the respondent Department communicating the petitioner that in spite of expiry of the period of deputation on 30th May, 1999, he had not reported back to service of State without getting his leave sanctioned and therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings may not be initiated against him vide Annexure -6 dated 25th July, 2001. The petitioner said to have made an application to the Authorities at King Fahad College, Riyadh to relieve him vide Annexure -7. Thereafter, a notice was published in the newspaper by the respondent -Department requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated/treating him to have resigned from the service with effect from the date he remained absent i.e. 30th May, 1999. On the petitioner's having been failed to show cause, his services came to be terminated by the respondent -Department vide order impugned Annexure -8 dated 4th January, 2006 in exercise of power under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short "the RSR" hereinafter) holding him guilty of unauthorised absence i.e. w.e.f. 30th May, 1999. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.