The Rajasthan High Court has held that unauthorized absence from duty without sanctioned leave cannot be treated as "deemed resignation" and must be dealt with under disciplinary rules applicable to government employees.
The Court partly allowed a petition challenging an order passed under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service (RVRES) Rules, which had declared a government college teacher as "deemed to have resigned". While upholding the validity of the show cause notice issued to him, the Court observed that his absence without proper leave does not fall within the scope of Rule 86, and instead, should be addressed under the disciplinary provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules).
The petitioner was employed as a B.Ed teacher in a government college and had applied for appointment under the RVRES cadre. After being relieved from his previous post, he was to report at the office of the Commissioner, College Education, under a "work arrangement". However, on the same day of reporting, he submitted a leave application and absented himself from duty without waiting for approval. Following this, he was issued a show cause notice due to his continued absence.
Later, an order was issued under Rule 86 of the RVRES Rules, stating that he was deemed to have resigned. This order was challenged by the petitioner.
Justice Arun Monga, who heard the case, held that “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.” He added that this rule applies to specific cases where an employee fails to rejoin after sanctioned leave, and not to those who leave without permission.
“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,” the Court remarked.
Justice Monga emphasized that such conduct amounts to indiscipline and must be dealt with under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, which governs disciplinary action for willful absence from duty. If the misconduct is proven, the appropriate penalty can be imposed by the competent authority.
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Rajasthan High Court Over District Judge Recruitment
“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 be proceeded with in accordance with law/Rules,” the Court stated.
The High Court thus set aside the order dated 07.09.2023 that had declared the petitioner as “deemed to have resigned”, while granting liberty to the concerned authorities to proceed with disciplinary action under the show cause notice dated 12.12.2022, issued under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules.
The judgment reinforces the principle that government servants cannot abandon their duties without following due process and must face appropriate disciplinary proceedings if they do so.
Title: Anil Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
