IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Iyyammal - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, The Ministry of Health & Welfare, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 17569 of 2015 & W.M.P. No. 2999 of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Writ Petition - Compulsory Retirement/VRS - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b), Rule 18(c) - The court discussed the procedures followed under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the absence of the petitioner without leave application or permission, and the authority's compliance with the rules in conducting the enquiry proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Staff Nurse, was deputed to work in Saudi Arabia for two years but remained absent without permission. Disciplinary actions were initiated, and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to be allowed to retire compulsorily or under Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner remained absent without permission, failed to respond to the disciplinary proceedings, and did not challenge the dismissal order in a timely manner. The court held that the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules were followed, and the petitioner failed to establish acceptable grounds for relief.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, compliance with disciplinary procedures, challenge to dismissal order, request for Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following disciplinary procedures and the petitioner's failure to challenge the dismissal order in a timely manner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the applicant and her representation dated 26.02.2015 to modify the dismissal order in to the one of compulsory retirement/VRS.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner based on her representation dated 26.02.2015, to modify the dismissal order in to the one of compulsory retirement/Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical Education on 06.04.1975. The petitioner applied for Passport to Saudi Arabia for taking an appointment in Government Hospital at Saudi Arabia. The tenure of assignment in the year 1986 was for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted an application for 'No Objection' and based on the 'No Objection' granted by the Government, the petitioner went to Saudi Arabia and accepted the appointment in the Government Hospital at Saudi Arabia. The petitioner was relieved from service on 18.08.1986. The period of Extraordinary Leave granted was for a period of two years. Thereafter, no extension was granted by the competent authority. However, the petitioner continued in Saudi Arabia and the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner sent several representations during the relevant point of time and those representations were not responded by the competent authorities.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that, when the petitioner returned back to India, she made an enquiry and found that she was dismissed from service. Thereafter, she approached the respondents and came to understand that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and she was dismissed from service. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner had not received any notice from the respondents and therefore, the entire proceedings were issued behind the back of the writ petitioner and thus, the cases of the writ petitioner is to be considered and allow her to retire compulsorily or under Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government / first respondent and the second respondent/The Directorate of Medical Education reveals that the petitioner Tmt.R.Iyyammal, formerly Staff Nurse, working at Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Government Hospital for Women and Children, Chennai was deputed to take up employment in Saudi Arabia and granted Extra-ordinary Leave for two years from 19.08.1986 Fore Noon. Subsequently, she was relieved on 18.08.1986 A.N. as per the Directorate of Medical Education's Reference letter dated 12.08.1986. The deputation period expired on 18.08.1988 AN. On completion of her deputation, the petitioner did not rejoined duty and proceeded unauthorized absence from duty from 19.08.1988 without signing any leave application or intimation to the authorities.
5. Consequently, the disciplinary actions were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and a charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 13.01.2001 by the Director and Superintendent, Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Government Hospital for Women and Children, Chennai. The charge against the writ petitioner was that she remained unauthorizedly absent and continued services at Saudi Arabia beyond the permitted period of two years. Further, the charge states that the petitioner has not submitted any leave application or sought for any permission from the competent authorities. That apart, the third charge reveals that the petitioner has failed to furnish the local address in India and the address, in which, the petitioner was residing in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the administration was not in a position to send communication and t
The importance of following disciplinary procedures and the significance of timely challenge to dismissal orders.
The limited scope of Judicial Review in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Competent Authority.
The Court emphasized the importance of integrity and devotion to duty in Uniformed Services, and held that unauthorized absence, even with medical grounds, may justify dismissal from service.
The discretionary nature of the writ of certiorari and the principles governing its issuance.
The court has the authority to review dismissal orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can set them aside if found to be unsustainable procedurally, in proportionality, and timing ....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of proportionality in reviewing the excessive nature of the dismissal order in light of the petitioner's medical c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.