Prolonged unexplained absence and failure to answer a show-cause notice defeat claims for unconditional rejoining.

The applicant, a Grade-I (DASS)/Section Officer, was directed to join the Directorate of Gurdwara Elections on diverted capacity and joined on 6 February 2021.

He was posted to Ward 23 on 11 February 2021, but the Department recorded that he did not attend duty.

The Department issued a show-cause notice on 24 February 2021 alleging absence and non-response to attempts to contact him, and warning that disciplinary action under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965 might be initiated.

The applicant did not reply within the stated time.

He maintained that he had not received the original notice, although he relied on a duplicate copy in the proceedings.

In 2026, he applied for a direction permitting him to rejoin and mark attendance; he said he would respond to the allegations after being allowed to resume duty.

1. Whether the applicant had established an entitlement to a direction permitting him to rejoin duty and mark attendance despite his prolonged absence and failure to respond to the show-cause notice.

2. Whether the applicant’s explanation that he had not received the original notice, and his delay in approaching the Tribunal, justified the relief sought.

The show-cause notice referred to possible disciplinary action under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965 for alleged disobedience and conduct unbecoming of a government servant.

The Tribunal cited no statutory provision beyond that reference and relied on no precedent.

Its decision was confined to whether the applicant had shown a legal or enforceable entitlement to unconditional rejoining on the facts before it; it expressly reserved the merits of any disciplinary or other proceedings to the competent authority, subject to applicable rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant knew the notice’s contents, had relied on a duplicate, and could have sought another copy or submitted an explanation, but had shown no effort to do so.

His position that he would answer the allegations only after rejoining did not justify his failure to explain his absence or establish a right to unconditional rejoining.

The Tribunal also noted that he had not produced an order permitting him to resume duty and had not satisfactorily explained why he waited until 2026 to seek relief concerning events beginning in 2021.

It therefore declined to direct the Department to permit rejoining and mark attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.

It clarified that the dismissal did not express any opinion on the merits of disciplinary or other proceedings that the competent authority might lawfully pursue.