STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus MOHAMMED AYUB NAZ

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 03-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, ,_ 
A 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ANR, 
V, 
MOHAMMED A YUB NAZ 
JANUARY 3, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
-. 
Service law: 
c 
Rajasthan Service Rules-Rule 86 (3)--Government servant--long 
absence from duty-Without intimation to Government-Disciplinary 
proceeding-Attended by delinquent-Termination of service-Writ Petition--
Single Judge of High Court though found the absence was without satisfactory 
explanation, yet reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement with 
consequential retrial benefits-Dismissal of appeal in limine by Division Bench 
" 
D of High Court-In appeal, held: Since the delinquent was wilfully absent for 
3 years without intimation to Government, in view of the Rule, the punishment 
of termination is just--High Court was not justified in r~ducing the punishment, 
Respondent was in the services of the appellant Government. He was 
E 
absent from duty for about a period of 3 years without prior permission. 
Plea of the respondent was t\lat he remained absent for the said period 
because he had fallen sick. Enquiry was conducted, which was attended 
by the respondent. Thereafter, his services were terminated. His appeal 
against the termination order was dismissed. He filed a Writ Petition. 
Single Judge of High Court, agreed that the respondent remained absent 
F for about 3 years and there was no satisfactory explanation to justify the 
absence. However, the punishment was reduced to compulsory retirement 
with consequential retiral benefits. Appeal of the Government was 
dismissed by Division Bench of High Court in limine, 
In appeal to this Court the main questions for consideration were : 
G (1) whether High Court could interfere with the question of punishment, 
once it was decided that the finding of delinquent being absent for 3 years 
as correct; (2) whether High Courtwas right in converting the punishment 
"' 
of removal into compulsory retirement with consequential retiral benefits 
after endorsing that the delinquent was absent for about 3 years and there 
H was no satisfactory explanation for that. 
138 
STA TE OF RAJAS THAN v. MOHAMMED A YUB NAZ 
139 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, the respondent was deliberately 
absent for a period of about 3 years and, therefore, he has violated Rule 
86(3) of the Service rules which contemplated removal from service and, 
therefore, he will ·not be entitled to any back-wages or an"y other 
emoluments for the period for which he was absent. [147-F] 
B 
. ..._.,.. 
Syndicate Bank and Anr. v. K. Umesh Nayak, (1994) 5 SCC 572, 
\ 
\ 
followed. [147-G) 
Bank of India etc. v. T.S. Kelawala and Ors., etc., relied on. [147-A] 
1.2. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant C 
materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality 
committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly 
disproportionate. Tile punishment was awarded after considering all the 
relevant materials and, therefore, the interference by the High court on 
reduction of punishment of removal is not called for. [147-D! 
Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, [2001) 2 SCC 386, referred to. 
[147-C) 
D 
1.3. A Government servant who has wilfully been absent for a period 
of about 3 years and which fact is not disputed even by the Single Judge 
of the High Court has no right to receive the monetary/retiral benefits E 
during the period in question. The High Court has given all retiral benefits 
which shall meari a Iumpsum money of lakhs of rupees shall have to be 
given to the respo.ndent. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 
the admission made by the respondent himself that he was wilfully absent 
for 3 years, the punishment of removal imposed on him is absolutely p 
cor-rect a·nd not disproportionate as alleged by the respondent. 
[147-H; 148-A, BJ 
2. It cannot be said that while reviewing punishmen,~ if this Court is 
satisfied that Wednesbury Principles are violated, it has normally to remit 
the matter to the administrative authorities for a fresh decision as to the G 
quantum of punishment. In the instant case, there has been a long delay 
in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in ttie time taken in 
the courts and, therefore, in such rare cases, this Court can substitute its 
own view as to the quantum of punishment. Therefore, the Court does 
not propose to issue a direction to the disciplinary/appellate authority to 
reconsider the pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.