MEENAKSHI MALIK Vs. SECRETARY INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was removed from service pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her for remaining away from work without due permission from 31st July, 2003 for a period of three years by order dated 24th January, 2006, which was challenged by the petitioner in an original application bearing OA No. 2262/2008 titled as Dr. (Mrs.) Meenakshi Malik Vs. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research which was dismissed by order dated 25th November, 2009. The petitioner had also challenged the rejection of his representation by order dated 18th June, 2008. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his original application, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner remained absent without due permission from 31st July, 2003 for a period of about three years. Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner were ex-parte as the petitioner had left India and she had gone to USA which is admitted by the petitioner. Since, the charges framed against the petitioner remained unsubstantiated, the penalty of removal from service was passed, which was up held by the Appellate Authority. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sengh has contended that the leave was sanctioned to the petitioner for certain period, however, he has not been able to show anything that the leave was sanctioned except for 50 days initially. The learned counsel has also impugned the order on the ground of discrimination alleging that her husband in similar circumstances, who remained absent from work without permission for almost the same period as petitioner, has been compulsorily retired whereas the petitioner has been removed from service. The Tribunal while dealing with the case of the petitioner viz-a- viz her husband has noticed and relied on the facts that there was conscious effort on the part of the petitioner to cover up her programme to go to USA as she had withdrawn funds from her GPF and had even disassociated herself with the work of the Institution. The petitioner had also availed only 50 days leave on the ground that she has to attend to important work at home though she had left India. The application for leave filed by her also disclosed reasons for absence as urgent work at home for personal problems and personal reasons. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that on receiving the information about the disciplinary action though the petitioner reported back for duty and rejoined the duty, but after about a week she had again absented and had gone abroad without informing the respondents about her whereabouts.

(2.) In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot dispute that she has remained absent without any leave after she had joined back and reported the duty after initiation of disciplinary proceedings only for a short period and thereafter again absented without permission and without disclosing that he she had been going abroad. She also gave false information about the reason for her absence. Considering the circumstances of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be held that there was any reasonable justification for the petitioner to remain absent from duty without informing the respondents. In the circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removal from service, cannot be held to be excessive nor the petitioner can raise the plea of discrimination. In any case, before raising the plea of discrimination, the petitioner should have disclosed the facts for absence pleaded by her husband showing the similarity between her and the case of her husband. The petitioner deliberately did not disclose correct facts and sought leave initially for 50 days on the ground of personal problems at home. In the circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of discrimination nor there is any other illegality and irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dated 25th November, 2009 in OA No. 2262/2008 titled Dr. (Mrs.) Meekanshi Malik Vs. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The writ petition in the facts and circumstances, is without any merit and it is therefore, dismissed.