JYOTI YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dtd. 24/9/2016 (Annexure P/15) issued by Respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground of her unauthorised absent from duty for seven years.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, as as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner from time-to-time has sent leave applications and after recovery of her illness, she gave joining on respective dates, therefore, the absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be treated as unauthorized absence. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, despite her leave application from time to time, have not decided the leave case of the petitioner nor any inquiry has been made against the petitioner thereof, therefore, termination order dtd. 24/9/2016 (Annexure P/15) is premature and bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were under obligation to first decide the leave case holding that there was unauthorized absence by affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain the position that she was not in unauthorized leave, therefore, it is not a case of unauthorized absence as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case between State of Punjab V. Dr. P.L. Singla [2008 (8) SCC 469].