Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.

ORDER :

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order (Annexure P-1) dated 11-4- 2017 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby service of petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect, on the ground of unauthorized absence from the duty for long period.

2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that, she was appointed on government job on 20-10-1986 and she was working as Montessary Teacher at Child Observation Home, Durg, CG. She sent applications for casual leave on 10-12-2013, 11-12-2013, 12-12-2013 and 13-12-2013, subsequently, she sent application (Annexure P-2) dated 16-12-2013 to the respondent No. 4/ District Programme Officer, Durg for grant of 10 days earned leave on the ground of her illness. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued show cause notice (Annexure P- 3) dated 17-2-2014 mentioning therein that, she had sent earned leave application for 10 days in plain paper on 16-12-2013, hence, she ought to have present on 25-12-2013 on duty, but, neither she appeared on her duty nor sent earned leave application in prescribed format, thus, she is absent unauthorizedly without submitting appropriate application, which is violative to Rule 3 of CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (in short, hereafter referred to ‘Conduct Rules, 1965’) therefore, submit her explanation within a week as to why, disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against her. The petitioner again sent application (Annexure P-4) dated 10-3-2014 for grant of earned leave from 26-11-2013 to 28-3-2014. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5 dated 13-3-2014 to Annexure P-9 dated 22-4-2014, she was engaged in election training/duty in the month of March and April, 2014, in pursuance thereof, she got election training and also engaged as member of election party in respect of Lok Sabha Election, 2014. On 25-6-2014, respondent No. 4 served copy of charge sheet vide Annexure P-10 to her and directed her to submit her reply. Petitioner submitted her reply vide Annexure P-11 dated 21-7-2014 mentioning therein that, because of ill health, she could not present on her duty, therefore, she had sent application in plain paper and had also communicated about these facts to respondent No. 4 over mobile, thereafter, she was engaged in election duty in the month of March and April, 2014. Vide Annexure P-12 dated 17-11-2014, Enquiry Officer sent notice to her for her appearance before him on 10-12- 2014 in departmental enquiry proceeding. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-14 dated 7-1-2015, Annexure P-16 dated 30-3-2015, Annexure P- 18 dated 7-5-2015 (it appears that date is wrongly mentioned as ‘7-5- 2014’), Annexure P-22 dated 15-7-2015, the Enquiry Officer sent notices for her appearance before him on the date mentioned in the notices. In reply to aforesaid notices, petitioner again and again sent applications i.e. Annexure P-15, Annexure P-17, Annexure P-19, Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-23, mentioning therein that, since her health has not improved, therefore, she could not appear before him.

2.1 Since despite repeated notices, petitioner did not appear before Enquiry Officer, therefore, Enquiry Officer examined departmental witnesses and submitted ex-parte enquiry report Annexure D-3 dated 14-3-2016 to the Disciplinary Authority, holding guilty to the petitioner that, she is unauthorizedly absent from her duty since 16-12-2013 without sanction of leave. The Disciplinary Authority accepted enquiry report and the finding mentioned therein and based on that report, vide impugned order dated 11-4-2017 (