2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 10366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.17569 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.2999 of 2016 R.Iyyammal ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary, The Ministry of Health & Welfare, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Directorate of Medical Education, Ezilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Managing Director, Over Seas Manpower Corporation, 18-A 1st, Cross St, C.I.T.Colony, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents 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.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lawrence For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2016
ORDER
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 thereby, the petitioner caused inconvenience to the Department.
6. Three charges were framed against the writ petitioner. The charge memo was served on the delinquent officer under Rule 18(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in the presence of Village Administrative Officer,