Rule 86(4) RSR: No Deemed Resignation Without Leave, Raj HC

No Deemed Resignation Under Rule 86(4) Where Leave Was Never Sanctioned: Rajasthan High Court Remands Lecturer's Case

Published: 31 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur quashed an order treating a lecturer as deemed to have resigned under Rule 86(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (paras 10-13). Deemed resignation applies where a government servant stays absent after the leave period is over; the lecturer had never been granted leave and was simply absent without authority (para 11). The Single Judge's order was set aside and the matter remanded for proceedings under the correct provisions within six months (paras 12-14).

Key holdings

A lecturer never granted leave, who stayed away from 5 May 2022, was absent without authority, not deemed to have resigned under Rule 86(4) (paras 9, 11-12).

The order of 7 September 2023 and the Single Judge's order of 1 April 2025 were quashed and set aside (para 13).

Proceedings under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 must be completed within six months, with reasonable opportunities to defend (paras 13-15).

Salary, other benefits and the work-arrangement posting are left to the State to decide in accordance with law (para 16).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Dr. Anil Paliwal, a Lecturer in State service, was posted on a work-arrangement basis to the Commissionerate on 22 April 2022 (para 4). Asking for a teaching post, he joined on 4 May 2022 but from 5 May 2022 stayed away without sanctioned leave or permission to leave headquarters (para 4). After a show-cause notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and a notice under Rule 86(4), he was discharged on 7 September 2023 as deemed to have resigned (para 4). A Single Judge decided his writ petition, with two others on salary and the posting, on 1 April 2025; three special appeals followed (paras 2, 4).

Court's Findings

The Bench noted that the lecturer, unhappy with the work-arrangement posting, left the office on 5 May 2022 without leave or permission and was then proceeded against under Rule 86 (para 9). Quoting the rule, it said it was at a loss to understand how the State had invoked it in these circumstances (para 10). On a bare reading, a government servant is deemed to have resigned only if he continues to remain absent after the leave period is over, for the periods in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (4) (para 11). Here no leave was ever granted or sanctioned; he simply chose to remain absent without authority of law (para 11). The State had therefore wrongly proceeded under Rule 86 (para 12). The proper course was appropriate action under the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, taking into account his unauthorised absence (para 12). Both sides had accepted that they could not show the proceedings were lawful and had asked for a remand (para 7). The Court did not rule on the work-arrangement posting; it left that question, and salary, to the State (para 16).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 86(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, deemed resignation applies to a government servant who remains absent, for the periods in clauses (a) to (c), after his leave period is over. One never granted leave who stays away without authority must be dealt with under the appropriate provisions of the Rules (paras 11-12).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For departments facing an employee who refuses a posting and stays away, this judgment marks a limit on Rule 86(4). The Court read deemed resignation as applying to absence that continues after a leave period is over, and held that a lecturer who never had leave was absent without authority, not deemed to have resigned (paras 11-12). The State's route is action under the correct provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, with reasonable opportunities to defend (paras 12-15); the judgment does not name the specific provision. For employees, it is no endorsement of refusing a posting: the Court recorded the unauthorised absence, and salary and the posting remain for the State to decide (paras 9, 16).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.