Employee not returning to Duty could not be treated as resignation
In a recent case, the Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a petition challenging an order that declared a government college teacher as “deemed to have resigned” under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules. The court ruled that while the show cause notice issued to the teacher was valid, his act of not returning to duty could not be treated as resignation. Instead, the teacher’s behavior should be considered as indiscipline and dealt with under the appropriate civil service rules.
The Case Background
The teacher in question was working as a B.Ed. instructor at a government college when he applied for a position under the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service (RVRES). He was released from his current service to join the new position. However, on the very first day, he applied for leave, which was not approved, and then failed to report back to work. This absence led to him being issued a show-cause notice.
Later, an order was passed under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, declaring the teacher as “deemed to have resigned” due to his failure to return after the leave period. This order was challenged in court.
Court’s Decision
Justice Arun Monga of the Rajasthan High Court examined the case and concluded that Rule 86 could not be applied in this situation. Rule 86 is designed for cases where an employee does not return to work after taking sanctioned leave. However, in this case, the teacher had simply abandoned his duties without requesting permission or leave.
The court emphasized that abandoning duty without prior leave or permission is an act of indiscipline. It cannot be equated with cases where an employee fails to return after an authorized leave period. The court pointed out that treating an unauthorized absence as a “deemed resignation” would allow an employee to avoid consequences for misconduct, which is not acceptable under service discipline rules.
Indiscipline Must Be Dealt with Under Rule 17
The court ruled that cases of abandonment of duty should be handled under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules). This rule addresses willful absence from duty and outlines the process for disciplinary actions. If it is found that the teacher’s absence was intentional, the competent authority could impose appropriate penalties.
The court specifically noted that the teacher’s absence, starting from May 5, 2022, without any leave or permission, made him liable for disciplinary action under Rule 17. Therefore, the court set aside the order declaring him as “deemed to have resigned” and allowed the authorities to continue with the show cause notice issued to the teacher on December 12, 2022, under Rule 17.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision clarifies that abandonment of duty is a serious issue and must be addressed according to the rules governing civil servants. The court has given the authorities the right to take further disciplinary action in line with the law, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline within government service.
