Disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural fairness; non-compliance may lead to modifications in penalties imposed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 22.06.2012 in G.O.(D) No.530 of the Health and Family Welfare (1-1) Department.

2. By the said impugned order, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, thereby affecting her pension.

3. The brief facts of the case, in short, are as follows:–

i) The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Professor of Periodontia at the Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, was issued a charge memo dated 03.02.2011 containing three charges, which are as under:–

“Charge 1 That, Dr.Vidya Albert Yen, formerly Assistant Professor of Periodontia, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai was granted permission to study at La Trobe University, Australia and also granted extra ordinary leave for one year year from 18.02.2008 a.n. On completion of leave period, she had failed to report at this Directorate on 19.02.2009 f.n. fur further postings. She had reported for postings in this Directorate on 03.06.2009 and she had overstayed abroad from 19.02.2009 to 02.06.2009 and thereby, derelicted in her duties as a responsible Government Servant.

Charge No.2 That, on return from abroad, Dr.Vidya Albert Yen, formerly Assistant Professor of Periodontia, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, had not joined duty at Dharmapuri Medical College, Dharmapuri, when she was posted vide this office reference No.41114/E3/09 dated 18.06.2009 and unauthorizedly stayed away from duty from 18.06.2009 to 10.11.2009 until the date of joining duty at Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, vide this office modified posting order No.41114/E3/09 dated 04.11.2009.

Charge No.3 That by her above act, she has violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973.’’

ii) The petitioner submitted her reply/explanation to the said charge memo denying the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the reply/explanation given by the petitioner, initiated disciplinary proceedings against her, pursuant to which an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted her defence statement. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the materials on record and the explanation/defence statement of the petitioner, concluded the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

iii) Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice, to which she submitted her further reply/explanation denying the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent, after considering the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the Enquiry Officer’s report, passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2012. Challenging the said order dated 22.06.2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed, as already stated supra.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the said order dated 22.06.2012 passed against the petitioner, firstly contending that the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 18.02.2008, was accorded permission to go abroad for studies for a period of one year, commencing from 14.02.2008 and expiring on 13.02.2009; that the petitioner, even before the expiry of one year, returned to India on 28.11.2008 and immediately upon her return submitted a representation dated 29.01.2009 requesting the respondents to permit her to join duty. However, such representation was not considered and was rejected without assigning any reason, and the petitioner was issued with a posting orde