Prolonged unauthorized absence does not confer an indefeasible right to rejoin service.

The applicant, an ITS Group ‘A’ officer recruited through the UPSC in the 1987 batch, joined the Telecom Department on 20.02.1989. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in relation to maintenance works and procurement of CDOT cards/kits; although the Inquiry Officer did not find the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalties, which the applicant challenged before the Tribunal.

During the pendency of those proceedings, he tendered his resignation on 31.01.2002, but the respondents did not accept it.

By communication dated 06.02.2004, the respondents called upon him to resume duty; he admittedly did not do so.

The applicant attributed his non-joining to pending criminal proceedings and mental stress. He was acquitted by the competent CBI Court on 21.12.2015, but approached the respondents only through representations dated 11.12.2017, 02.01.2018 and subsequently 03.04.2018, seeking permission to join and posting orders.

The applicant relied on RTI material and his continued inclusion in certain ITS Group ‘A’ seniority lists.

The respondents stated that his case had been considered along with other cases of prolonged absence, that consultation with the Vigilance Wing had been contemplated, and that his name was deleted from the civil list in 2020 after treating him as absconding with approval of the competent authority.

They opposed his claim principally on the basis of Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and his prolonged unauthorized absence.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to be permitted to resume duty and receive posting orders after failing to rejoin despite the respondents’ communication dated 06.02.2004 and remaining absent for a prolonged period

2. Whether the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal case, continued inclusion in seniority lists, and the respondents’ failure to promptly conclude his service-status proceedings conferred an enforceable right to rejoin with consequential monetary and seniority benefits

3. Whether the applicant’s case was liable to be dealt with under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972

The Tribunal applied Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, as relied upon by the respondents in relation to prolonged absence from duty.

The Tribunal further applied the service-law principles that an employee who, despite being directed to resume duty, remains absent for an exceptionally long and unexplained period cannot claim resumption of service and consequential monetary or seniority benefits as an indefeasible right; administrative delay in formally concluding the employee’s service status does not itself create such a right.

The continued appearance of an employee’s name in seniority lists, without actual service or timely assertion of rights, does not by itself establish entitlement to rejoin duty.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s resignation had not been accepted, but that fact did not determine his entitlement to rejoin after his subsequent conduct.

Once the respondents specifically called upon him to resume duty in 2004, he neither reported for duty nor approached the respondents or the Tribunal for several years.

The pendency of criminal proceedings and the applicant’s mental stress did not establish legal restraint preventing him from joining, particularly since he was neither arrested nor otherwise legally incapacitated.

His acquittal in 2015 did not explain why he waited until December 2017 to seek restoration of service.

The Tribunal also found that the RTI material did not support the applicant’s case: rather, it showed that the department had been examining cases of prolonged absence, including his case, and that administrative delay in completing that process could not cure his own failure to resume duty.

Likewise, the applicant’s inclusion in seniority lists could not override his admitted non-joining and prolonged absence.

Although the respondents ought to have brought the matter to its logical conclusion after the applicant failed to comply with the 2004 direction, that omission did not entitle him, after more than a decade without service, to rejoin and claim consequential benefits.

It held that the applicant had no enforceable right to resume duty after failing to comply with the direction dated 06.02.2004 and remaining absent for a prolonged period.

His acquittal, continued appearance in seniority lists, and the respondents’ delay did not justify permitting him to rejoin or granting monetary and seniority benefits.

The OA was accordingly dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.