Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Removal from Service, Citing Willful Absence and Procedural Compliance
In a notable decision, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, presided by Justice Anand Sharma, has dismissed the writ petition filed by Mahaveer Singh Rathore, challenging the rejection of his resignation and subsequent removal from the Rajasthan Administrative Service. Rathore, initially appointed as an Officer in the Rajasthan Administrative Service in 1979, tendered his resignation in November 1995 while facing potential disciplinary action for unauthorized absence from duty.
The court, in its decision dated January 8, 2026, emphasized that a public servant's resignation during ongoing departmental proceedings does not constitute an absolute right to exit service. The judgment highlighted that acceptance of such resignation is contingent upon the approval of the competent authority, especially when serious misconduct allegations are under scrutiny. The court noted that Rathore's resignation could not be deemed effective without the authority's approval, aligning with the principles of accountability and administrative discipline.
The court observed that Rathore had been absent from duty since February 1995, and despite being informed of the non-acceptance of his resignation, he failed to resume his duties. The disciplinary inquiry, conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, found him guilty of willful absence. The penalty of removal from service was imposed, a decision upheld by the court as proportionate to the misconduct.
Further, the court clarified its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality, procedural violations, or disproportionate punishment. The court found no procedural errors or violation of natural justice in Rathore's case, thereby affirming the disciplinary authority's decision.
The allegations of mala fides against the then Chief Minister were dismissed by the court due to the lack of supporting material and non-impleading of the concerned party. The court reiterated that such allegations require the concerned individual's inclusion as a party respondent to be considered.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court's ruling underscores the principle that resignation amid disciplinary proceedings requires careful consideration by the competent authority, ensuring the maintenance of public service integrity and accountability.
Bottom Line:
Resignation tendered by a public servant cannot be construed as an absolute right to exit service, especially when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending.
Statutory provision(s): Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 Rule 86, Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16, Constitution of India - Article 226
