Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a plea challenging an order under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules as per which a government college teacher was “deemed to have resigned”, stating that though show cause notice issued to him was correct, his act of not reporting back on duty could not be deemed as a resignation.
The court said that though Rule 86 was not applicable however as the petitioner remained absent without even applying for any leave or permission, in such cases indiscipline of the Government servant has to be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Rule 17 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules) for willful absence from duty.
The petitioner was working as a B.Ed teacher in a Governmental College when he applied for appointment under Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service (RVRES) Cadre. He was relieved from his current service to report to the office of Commissioner, College Education under “work arrangement”.
However, on the day of reporting itself, he applied for leave, and without sanctioning of the same, absented himself from duty. Subsequently, he was served a show-cause notice for this absence from duty.
Eventually, an order under Rule 86 of the Rules was passed pronouncing him deeming to have resigned from service. This order was challenged by petitioner.
Justice Arun Monga held that the applicability of Rule 86 of the Rules was limited to the stipulated situations, particularly where the employee failed to rejoin service after a sanctioned leave period. However, in the present case, the petitioner simply abandoned his assignment after joining duty, and never reported back.
“The deeming provision under Rule 86(4) is strictly limited to the above situations and cannot be extended to cases of abandonment without prior leave or sanction. The provision serves as a non-punitive resolution in cases where a government servant, despite having obtained leave, fails to return for a prolonged period. However, treating illegal/unauthorized abandonment of duty, which is an act of indiscipline and insubordination, as deemed resignation would improperly equate such conduct with procedural non-compliance following authorized leave, effectively granting a lenient exit to someone who ignored the basic norms of service discipline. Therefore, I am of the view that the conditions for invoking deemed resignation under Rule 86 are not met in the petitioner’s case,” the court said.
It was ruled that such case of indiscipline had to be dealt with under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. In case the delinquency of the petitioner was proved, appropriate penalty shall be inflicted on him by the competent authority.
“Having observed as above, I may hasten to add here that the fact remains that the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 05.05.2022 without even applying for any leave or permission. For this, he can be and is liable to proceeded with in accordance with law/Rules. In such cases, indiscipline of the Government servant has to be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules for willful absence from duty,” it added.
The court thus partly allowed the petition to the extent that the order dated 07.09.2023–which pronounced him as “deemed to have resigned from service”–was set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner as per show cause notice dated 12.12.2022 issued under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and to take further decision in accordance with law.
Title: Anil Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions