Unauthorised absence from duty can lead to disciplinary action, and the application of relevant disciplinary rules is crucial in justifying the removal from service.

The petitioner was working as a Rural Welfare Officer (Women) in Agastheeswaram Panchayat Union. After her retirement, she filed O.A.No.7557 of 1998, challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.4.1997. By the said order, the petitioner was removed from service for her unauthorized absence.

2. On notice from the tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 7. 2001 justifying the order of removal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.36264 of 2006.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while she was working as a Rural Welfare Officer (Women) at Palani Panchayat Union, she had applied for medical leave for a period of 60 days from 3. 1966. Afterwards, she asked for a posting order supported with a medical certificate, but she did not get any posting order. She further submitted an application to the second respondent on 210. 1966 and again on 13. 1968. On 010. 1970, the second respondent asked the petitioners willingness to join any Block where she can be posted. The petitioner, by her letter, dated 111. 1970, gave her willingness. But she was not given any posting order. After protracted correspondence, she was given a posting order by the Joint Director of Social Welfare vide order, dated 212. 1984 at Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Madurai.

4. She joined duty on 1. 1985. As soon as she joined duty, she was placed under suspension with effect from 85. Thereafter, a charge memo was given to the petitioner, dated 9. 85 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that she had failed to resume duty on the expiry of her leave for a period of two months from 3. 1966. She had also failed to apply for leave and getting a posting order after the expiry of two months leave availed by her. Therefore, she was liable to be removed from service under FR 18(2). The petitioner submitted her explanation on 8. 86. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Joint Director of Social Welfare, Madurai. Thereafter, by an order, dated 211. 1986, she was removed from service. This was on the ground that as per records, she had stayed away from duty for over 15 years. Under FR 18, if a person failed to resume duty after the expiry of a period of five years, he/she is deemed to have resigned their post and ceased to be a Government employee.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of removal. The appellate authority rejected her appeal, by an order, dated 19. 1988. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed OA No.368 of 1989, challenging the said order. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 210. 1990 set aside the order passed by the Director of Social Welfare and passed the following order, which is as follows:

"In this case, the fact of absence from duty for a period of five years has been established, but the aspects in sub-clause (b) & (c) of Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Control & Appeal) Rules, taking the totality of the facts of this case, covering defaults both by the applicant and the respondent, whether there was sufficient ground for taking action and whether the punishment imposed is appropriated had not been examined. For these reasons, we set aside the order passed by the Director of Social Welfare on appeal and direct the first respondent to reconsider the matter with reference to the specific requirements under Rule-23(1) referred to above, the first respondent is directed to issue orders within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order."

6. The short point on which the Tribunal had allowed the OA was that the appellate authoritys order was bereft of any reason. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Joint Director vide notice, dated 112. 1995. The petitioner once again challenged the said notice by filing an another OA, being O.A.No.375 of