Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

48. As per provisions contained in Rule 86 of the RSR, an absentee servant can be treated wilfully absent either in case of his being absent without leave, or in case of his being absent before leave applied for has been sanctioned. Under the Rules word, "or" has been used betwixt "without leave" and "before leave applied for has been sanctioned". These two expressions are independent. First expression "without leave" is an act to be performed by the absentee servant, whereas second expression relates to the act for being performed by the employer i.e. Government's competent authority to sanction leave. If the absentee servant remains "without leave" then it may be his fault but as soon as the absentee servant sends his application and applies for leave then it is the duty and obligatory for the authority to either sanction or reject leave and inform the absentee about the decision taken on his leave applied for, either sanctioned or rejected. However, if the sanctioning authority fails to communicate either the rejection or sanction of the leave applied for to the Government servant within reasonable time in accordance with relevant rules then the absentee servant cannot be blamed and saddled for making him liable to any disciplinary action. Even as per legislative intent and object to frame Rule 86, provisions have also been contemplated that if the absentee servant continue to be absent even after expiry of the sanctioned leave or after communication of refusal of extension of leave, then on his failure to furnish satisfactory reasons at the worst he is not entitled to any pay and allowances for the absence period and if satisfactory reasons are furnished and the sanctioning authority is satisfied, in that eventuality his absence can be regularised by grant of leave due by the sanctioning authority as stipulated under Rule 86(2)(a). Similarly, even in cases of the absentee servant having remained absent without leave or before applied leave is sanctioned, such absence can be regularised by grant of leave due or can be commuted into extra ordinary leave provided the sanctioning authority is satisfied to the reasons furnished by such absentee. In other words there should be satisfactory reasons being furnished for his such absence under Rule 86(1) of the RSR, otherwise it will amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service besides such absentee under Rule 86(1) can be treated to have remained wilfully absent. There is also non obstante clause in Sub-rule (3) to Rule 86, i.e. "notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sub-rules (1) & (2)". But as per specific provision contained in Clause (b) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 86, disciplinary action can be rendered against the absentee servant only upon his wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave.

49. Be that as it may, the decks are clear that before imposing the penalty on the delinquent, a legal duty is cast upon the disciplinary authority to record good and sufficient reasons and to record satisfaction upon considering circumstances or reasons furnished by the absentee servant for his alleged absence, as is provided in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules which begins with the words, "MAY FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED, AND.....". Thus while affirming the view taken by this Court in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan 1993 (3) RLR 592. We are of the firm view that undisputably the action of the disciplinary authority under the CCA Rules is quasi judicial and the order passed by it is also quasi judicial and therefore, even in the absence of a requirement by the stute, it is always imperative for disciplinary authority to record reasons because fulfilment of such requisite of recording of reasons is a part and parcel of the requirement of complying with principles of natural justice. Further the scheme of CCA Rules not only reinforces essentiality of giving of good and sufficient reasons but also the rule making authority has designedly thought it proper to incorporate the requirement of recording good and sufficient reasons, inasmuch as such requisite carries with it another requirement of communicating those reasons to the affected person. Once the rule requires that reasons to be recorded in support of punishment order must be good and sufficient, it is open to the Court to examine those reasons and consider for itself whether the reasons are good and sufficient because even sufficiency of reasons is open to scrutiny not only by the appellate and reviewing authority but also by the Courts of law. Thus we disapprove the view taken by the learned Single Judge (Per V.K. Singhal, J.,) in his referral order in the instant case on all aspects of disciplinary action as well as the quantum of punishment.