1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4623/1999
Mam Raj Singh Chouhan
VS.
State of Rajasthan and Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 12.11.2009.
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P. Khileree, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the order
dated 20.9.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services
Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, this petition for writ is preferred.
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the
petitioner, a Multi Purpose Worker in the office of Principal,
Medical Officer, Hanumangarh by way of filing an appeal as per
the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Service matter) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Act of 1976’) sought a direction to permit him to
mark his attendance in the office attendance register from
30.11.1997 to 1.12.1997 and also for making payment for the
period commencing from 1.12.1997 to 31.8.1998.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected
on the count that as per provisions of Section 4 of the Act of
1976, an appeal lies against an order and in the instant case
2
there was no order under challenge. Learned Tribunal while
rejecting the appeal also directed the respondents to decide the
issue relating to the petitioner’s absence from duties
expeditiously.
So far as, view taken by the learned Tribunal regarding
maintainability of appeal is concerned, I do not find any error in
that. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 prescribes that “The
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal shall hear an appeal
against the order passed by any officer or authority of any
service matter or matters affecting the Government servant in
his personal capacity.” In view of the provision aforesaid, there
must be an order passed by any officer or authority on any
service matter or matters affecting a Government servant. In the
instant case, admittedly, there is no order passed by any officer
or authority prohibiting the petitioner to put his signatures in
attendance register. In absence of such an order, the learned
Tribunal rightly held that the appeal was not maintainable.
I have also examined the matter on merits ignoring the
entire process relating to filing of appeal by the petitioner before
the learned Tribunal.
Precisely, the issue deserves consideration is that whether
the petitioner remained absent from duties from 30.11.1997 to
31.8.1998 unauthorisedly or he was restrained from marking
attendance by the officers of the respondent department or by
any other employee.
3
On 23.3.2009, the respondents were directed to make a
definite statement regarding petitioner’s absence from duties
and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, if any, against him. An
additional affidavit in pursuant thereto has been filed stating
therein that under memorandum dated 30.3.2009, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same
are yet pending.
During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the
petitioner stood retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation, thus, the Chief Medical and Health Officer,
Hanumangarh then vide communication dated 16.4.2009 made a
recommendation to drop disciplinary action. It is informed by
learned counsel for the respondents that the recommendation so
made has been negativated by the Additional Director
(Administration) under a communication dated 9.11.2009, copy
whereof is placed on record.
The factual position stated in the preceding paras makes it
abundantly clear that for the period of absence in question, the
petitioner is facing a disciplinary action and that is yet to be
completed. The factum of retirement of the petitioner in no way
relevant for dropping such action in view of the provision of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
On asking, learned counsel for the respondents stated that
if the petitioner cooperate, the entire disciplinary proceedings
may be completed expeditiously as far as possible within a
4
period of six months from today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
is ready and willing to cooperate the disciplinary authority and
enquiry officer, to get conclusion of disciplinary action.
In view of whatever stated above, I consider it appropriate
to dispose of this petition for writ with the direction to the
respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner under the memorandum dated 30.3.1999
within a period of six months from today. It is expected from the
petitioner that he will cooperate the enquiry officer and
disciplinary authority wholeheartedly during the process of
disciplinary action. The petitioner, therefore, is directed to report
before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh on
7.12.2009 and then the Chief Medical and Health Officer shall
decide further course of enquiry.
No order as to cost.
(GOVIND MATHUR)J.
Rm/-