IMPORTANT POINT
A public servant's unauthorized absence can lead to dismissal, even if procedural irregularities exist in the disciplinary process, if the absence is deemed as abandonment of duty.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. Hasibur Rahman, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.W.A. Mazumder, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bedanta Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4.

2. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 21. 06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, had instituted a review petition being Review Pet. No. 125/2024.

3. The above-noted Review Petition was allowed vide order, dated 14. 08.2024, recalling the order, dated 21.06.2024, passed by this Court in the instant writ petition being WP(c)3880/20217. Thereafter, the matter was again heard on 16.08.2024, and is fixed today, for delivery of orders.

4. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has assailed the order towards imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service with further prayer for reinstatement in her service with all consequential benefits.

5. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 17.05.1991 and posted to Maligaon Girls’ High School. She was subsequently transferred and posted in the same capacity, vide order, dated 02.03.2004, to Pub Guwahati High School. While continuing to serve as an Assistant Teacher in the said school; the petitioner proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 15.02.2008 to 29.02.2008. The said leave was so sanctioned by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner continued her leave w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 31.05.2009, and accordingly, the said period of leave was so sanctioned by the authorities as Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) without pay on private affairs.

6. It is seen that after conclusion of the period of leave so sanctioned to the petitioner till 31.05.2009; the petitioner did not resume her service and continued to remain absent. It is contended that the petitioner had from time to time submitted applications before the authorities of the school, in question, wherein she was so working, extending the leave so taken by her. The petitioner contends that she had resumed her service on 21.12.2012 and had attended her duties for a period of 10 days and thereafter, she had again proceeded on leave.

7. The petitioner, thereafter, vide a communication, dated 30.05.2016, issued from Lusaka, Zambia, had contended before the departmental authorities that she was out of the country accompanying her husband and accordingly, her leave application for the period so involved; had already been sent to the Office of the Headmaster of Pub Guwahati High School. The petitioner also contends that she intends to rejoin her duty w.e.f. 01.07.2016.

8. Poised thus, the petitioner came across a notice published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016, requiring the petitioner to submit her show-cause reply pertaining to the unauthorized absence w.e.f. 01.06.2009 and her non-response to the Communications, dated 23.05.2016 and 10.06.2016 issued by the departmental authorities, in this connection.

9. The petitioner further contends that on coming across the said notice published in “The Assam Tribune” on 24.06.2016, she submitted her show-cause reply to the Show Cause Notice so issued to her; on 27.06.2016. A Disciplinary Proceeding was so instituted against the petitioner and the same was taken forward and on conclusion of the same; the disciplinary authority i.e. Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Kamrup(M), vide order, dated 04.03.2017, noticing the long absence of the petitioner; proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon her with effect from the date of expiry of her Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) sanctioned i.e. 01.06.2009.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court on 20.06.2017.

11. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, by reiterating the above-noted facts, submitt