The court emphasized the requirement for sufficient grounds and special circumstances to justify the review and enhancement of disciplinary actions against government servants.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has stated that she was selected for appointment to the post of Typist, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on merits, and she had joined in service on 38. 1974. After qualifying herself for the appointment to the post of Steno Typist, she was appointed to the said post on 11. 1982, after getting the concurrence from the Government. The petitioner has further stated that while she was working as a Steno Typist in the Revenue Divisional Office, Coimbatore, she had applied for medical leave, for a period of two months from 8. 1987, due to her ill-health. Due to the deterioration of her health, she had applied for unearned leave on loss of pay. When she was on leave, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 111. 1987, stating that a Government servant who had completed five years of service cannot be absent or go on leave for a period of one year, continuously. If the Government servant is absent or goes on leave beyond the said period the said Government servant can be removed from service. Since the petitioner was on leave, she was not aware of the said Government Order. However, she was intimated about the Government Order and she was asked to join duty, immediately, by a memo, dated 110. 1988, issued by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Coimbatore. The said memo had been received by the petitioner, on 210. 1988. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had applied for being posted, vide her letter, dated 310. 1988. On the basis of her letter, dated 310. 1988, she was given the posting by an order, dated 12. 1988, passed by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Coimbatore.

3. The petitioner has further stated that due to certain family circumstances, she could not join duty, immediately. Hence, she had requested for three months time, upto 33. 1989, for joining duty. Her request was acceded to by a letter, dated 11. 1989. At the end of her leave, she had requested for the posting by her letter, dated 23. 1989. Accordingly, the petitioner was given the posting by an order, dated 4. 1989, passed by Personal Assistant to the Collector, Coimbatore. After joining duty, the petitioner has been continuing in service without any blemish. Thereafter, she had given a written representation, dated 28. 1989, to the third respondent, for regularisation of her leave period, from 8. 1987 to 33. 1989 and from 4. 1989 to 4. 1989. At that time, the petitioner was served with the charge memo, dated 111. 1991, levelling two charges stating that she was on leave on loss of pay for more than a year and thereby, she had violated the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 111. 1987, and that she had acted according to her own wish, without joining duty before the end of the one year period specified in the Order. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, dated 211. 1991, denying the charges. However, without accepting her explanation, the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry, on 20.1.1992, before the District Supply Officer, Coimbatore. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared for an enquiry. No witness was examined and no document was marked. Though the Enquiry Officer had given a finding that the charges can be viewed, sympathetically, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and for the reason that the petitioner had no chance to take note of the Government Order, while she was on leave. On the completion of the enquiry the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation to the Enquiry Officers report, vide memo, dated 28. 1992. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted her explanation, dated 9. 1992. The final order, dated 9. 92, was passed by the fourth respondent imposing the minor punishmen