[2026:RJ-JP:28580] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15098/2020 CNR: RJHC020771142020 | URN: CW / 28842U / 2020 Sultan Khan S/o Shri Ramjan Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gali No.3, Kayam Nagar, Deedwana, Police Station Deedwana, District Nagaur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan , Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Inspector General Of Police, Armed Battalion-Ii, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Commandant, Ivth Battalion, R.a.c. Chainpura, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 24/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 19.01.2016 whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on the ground of willful absence for a period of 2,479 days. Order dated 16.02.2017 whereby the said order stood affirmed by the Appellate Authority has also been assailed in the present petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s absence was not willful but was because of his illness. Further, just after a month of his appointment, he was transferred to other battalion and hence, he was in depression. [2026:RJ-JP:28580] (2 of 4) [CW-15098/2020] 3. Counsel while relying upon the judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Ms. Suman Lata Kapur vs State of Rajasthan & Others; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7954/2024 (decided on 04.11.2024) submitted that therein too, the incumbent was on leave for more than five years but still the Court interfered. 4. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record. 5. The admitted facts on record are that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 08.08.2008. Vide order dated 20.09.2008, he was transferred to other battalion and was directed to join at his transferred place of posting by 30.09.2008. But the petitioner never presented himself to the transferred place and remained absent from 30.09.2008 to 14.07.2015. 6. Disciplinary inquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1958’) was initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer proceeded on to impose punishment of ‘removal from service’ with the specific finding that despite the charge-sheet and the notice for personal hearing in the inquiry proceedings been served, the petitioner neither responded nor participated in the inquiry. Hence, the charge as levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved. 7. This Court is of the clear view that order impugned does not deserve any interference for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner worked only for a period of one month from the date of his appointment and remained absent without any leave been sanctioned, for a period of about seven years. [2026:RJ-JP:28580] (3 of 4) [CW-15098/2020] (ii) The reason assigned by the petitioner is that when he was transferred, he made all attempts for cancellation of his transfer order, but of no avail. The transfer of an employee cannot give him any right to remain absent and not to join at the transferred place. (iii) Admittedly, orders impugned pertain to 2016-2017 and the present writ petition was filed in the year 2020 without assigning any reason for the delay. (iv) Defects as pointed out in the writ petition were not cured and ultimately, the writ petition stood dismissed in the year 2021. Interestingly, restoration application was filed in the year 2025 after a period of four years, which stood allowed vide order dated 19.08.2025. 8. So far as the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, therein the Court interfered for the sole reason that the order of dismissal of the incumbent therein was passed without any disciplinary proceedings being initiated by the Department. Therein, the Court specifically observed that no order of punishment can be passed without an inquiry in terms of the governing rules been undertaken. The said ratio would definitely not apply to the present matter as herein not only inquiry in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was initiated, even notice by the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing was served in accordance with law. 9. It is further evident on record that the said notice was not responded to by the petitioner and he did not even care to participate in the inquiry proceedings. 10. The present writ petition hence, stand dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:28580] (4 of 4) [CW-15098/2020] 11. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 1/RASHMI