The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court provided relief to a government teacher, directing that her termination due to unauthorized leave from 1995 to 1999 be treated as a resignation, granting her post-retirement benefits for her 11 years of service.
Justice Farjand Ali presided over the petition filed under Article 226, where the petitioner argued she had initially applied for a seven-day leave in 1995. However, due to personal issues, including the passing of her in-laws, a difficult pregnancy, and her elder son’s death, she could not resume work until 1999. Despite her repeated applications for extended leave during this period, she was denied reinstatement in 1999 and formally terminated in 2000, subsequently being denied post-retirement benefits.
The respondents argued that the termination, based on Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, was justified due to her prolonged absence, interpreting her lack of return as abandonment of duty. However, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the termination order violated due process, as Rule 86 does not permit termination solely on grounds of absence. They requested either reinstatement or the award of post-retirement benefits.
The Court reviewed Rule 86 and agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, noting that while the rule permits actions like service interruption, forfeiture, or disciplinary proceedings for willful absence, it does not authorize termination without an inquiry. Rule 86(3) specifies that termination for willful absence requires a disciplinary process allowing the employee to explain her absence—a step the authorities bypassed in this case.
In its judgment, the Court stated: “An order under Rule 86(1) of the RSR for removal from service requires a hearing opportunity and a departmental inquiry under Rule 86(3) of the RSR. Removal without such inquiry violates legal mandate…thus, this Court declares the termination order patently illegal and quashes it.”
The Court further noted that under Rule 86(4), continuous absence without approved leave exceeding five years could be deemed resignation, not grounds for termination. As such, the petitioner’s absence should have been processed as a resignation, with due post-retirement benefits awarded.
Acknowledging her service record, the Court concluded that she was entitled to post-retirement benefits after 11 years of dedicated work. The Court also considered her personal hardships, including family bereavement, in its decision.
Accordingly, the Court ordered her status be changed from termination to resignation and directed the authorities to provide her post-retirement benefits.