IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that all government employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to the protections of Article 311, which mandates due process in disciplinary actions, including the right to a fair hearing before termination.

ORDER :

1. Grievance of the petitioner herein stems out of two orders; one is dated 20.01.2004 (Annex.13), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 14.06.2001 and the second dated 16.12.2004 (Annex.19), whereby the termination of petitioner’s services was confirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as below:

2.1 Vide an office order dated 02.06.1997, petitioner was appointed as Medical officer on adhoc basis against a permanent post. She joined her duty on 04.06.1997. On 03.11.1997, the petitioner submitted a maternity leave application on account of her pregnancy. She was later blessed with a female child on 27.02.1998. Due to her medical condition, she again submitted a leave application on 30.10.1998.

2.2 However, respondent No. 2 (Director, Medical & Health Services) wrote a letter to respondent No. 3 (CM&HO) on 24.12.1998 indicating that the petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc employee. Regarding her absence from duty, he suggested to take action against the petitioner. Vide a letter dated 06.01.1999, respondent No. 3 forwarded the matter to the Joint Director. Apropos, the Joint Director, vide order dated 07.01.1999, asked respondent No. 3 to take action against the petitioner.

2.3 Before any action could be taken, the petitioner joined her duties on 07.01.1999 itself. Posting was also accorded to her. Subsequent thereto, on 27.02.2001, respondent No. 3 issued an office order forfeiting the period of service during which she remained absent, i.e. from 04.11.1997 to 30.10.1998. The petitioner thereafter developed a psychological problem known a “Paranoid Shyzophrenia” which aggravated in the passage of time. The Incharge, Primary Health Center, where the petitioner was working reported the matter to the higher authorities and on the basis of the said report, the petitioner was relieved from Primary Health Center, Kharia Meethapur vide order dated 13.06.2001 (Annex.11) and was asked to report at the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jodhpur. Thereafter, due to health condition of the petitioner, she submitted another leave application through telegram and her husband informed respondent No. 3 regarding her leave, stating that she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and as soon as the psychiatrist gives her a fitness certificate, she will join duty.

2.4 That during the absence of the petitioner from duty, owing to her health condition, the department did not take any action and totally silent qua the same until all of a sudden the impugned order dated 20.01.2004 was passed by the respondent No. 3 terminating the services of petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 14.06.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.02.2004, but no heed was paid. She again submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 on 01.07.2004.

2.5 On 21.08.2004, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment order on contract basis with fixed pay. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner joined her duties on 27.08.2004. However, subsequently, by order dated 16.12.2004, the earlier termination order of petitioner's services was confirmed. Hence this petition.

3. Defence taken in the reply is as below:

3.1 The petitioner submitted the application for grant of leave on 01.11.1997, but a bare look at the same would clearly show that period of leave was not mentioned therein. The petitioner reported on duty on 03.11.1998; whereas, her initial date of appointment was 04.06.1997 and she remained on duty for a mere period of 2 months & 5 days. After 31.10.1998, the petitioner had not given any information regarding her absence or leave; whereas her child was born on 27.02.1998.

3.2 Vide communication 24.12.1998 (Annex.5), respondent no. 2 suggested respondent no. 3 to take its own decision in the matter, since the petitioner was appointed by the District Level Selection Committee. The said Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector. The petitioner was initially appointed for a period