[2025:RJ-JP:16894] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3741/2025 Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Ghassus Ka Bas, Madhopura, Via Kudi Badi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Chief Manager. 2. The Executive Director (Administration) And Authorized Appellate Authority, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Chief Manager. 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalana Doongri Depot, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 22/04/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2-the appellate authority whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 30.06.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of ‘removal from service’ upon the petitioner, has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage Driver by the respondent No.1- Corporation vide order dated 16.06.1993. Vide memorandum dated 16.09.2005, he was served upon a chargesheet under Section 34(O) of the Standing Order, 1965 alleging therein that he was absent from duty since 25.06.2005 without information and/or without getting the leave sanctioned and did not resume it [2025:RJ-JP:16894] (2 of 3) [CW-3741/2025] despite service of registered notices dated 16.07.2005 and 25.08.2005. After conducting the inquiry, vide order dated 30.06.2007, the disciplinary authority removed him from service which has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order impugned dated 07.10.2024. Assailing the order dated 07.10.2024, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards his statement dated 07.10.2024 as mentioned in the order impugned, is that since, he was ill, he remained absent and on account of long lapse of time, he did not have any medical document to support his illness. He submits that the order impugned is bad in law inasmuch as it was passed without considering this aspect of the matter. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 07.10.2024 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Heard. Considered. As already observed, the allegation against the petitioner is that he remained absent from duty from 25.06.2005 without information and/or without getting the leave sanctioned and did not resume the same despite service of registered notices. During the course of inquiry also, despite service of summons/notices and even pursuant to publication of public notice in the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”, the petitioner neither appeared nor, any response was filed by him. The inquiry officer, in its ex parte inquiry report, found the allegation to be proved against him. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the [2025:RJ-JP:16894] (3 of 3) [CW-3741/2025] disciplinary authority, holding him guilty of the charge levelled, punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 30.06.2007 which was unsuccessfully challenged by him by way of a departmental appeal which came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 07.10.2024. There is no allegation of infraction of any statutory provision or the principle of natural justice in conducting the departmental inquiry. The disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty of misconduct on the basis of evidence on record which has been affirmed by the appellate authority re-appreciating the evidence. It is trite law that this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry and affirmed by the appellate authority. Indisputably, the petitioner has remained absent from duty for a considerable period of time without information and/or without sanction of leave and did not resume it despite service of registered notices. He also did not participate in the inquiry proceeding despite service of summons/notices and publication of notice in the daily newspaper. He miserably failed to substantiate his plea of alibi on account of illness. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the order impugned so as to warrant interference of this Court, under its limited writ jurisdiction, in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the disciplinary authority as also by the appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/40