HARSHABEN B. PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, serving as a Food Inspector, has prayed for the following reliefs;

(2.) The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under;

(3.) Mr. Oza, the learned senior advocate appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order could be termed as unreasonable and erroneous in law. He submitted that his client had to leave India all of a sudden as she had serious matrimonial problems. The husband, after the marriage, had left for London and was residing at London since then. He submitted that after reaching London, the writ applicant as well as her husband decided to dissolve the marriage with mutual consent. Accordingly, they applied for dissolution of the marriage before a County Court in London and by virtue of the decree drawn by the Court concerned in London, the marriage was dissolved. Mr. Oza submitted that no sooner the marriage was dissolved, then the writ applicant returned to India and resumed her service. She was permitted to resume her service without any objection. He pointed out that the issue was concluded by a warning which could be termed as censure. He pointed out that the leave for the period between 18th August, 1993 and 14th May, 1994 was also sanctioned ex post facto without pay. Five years thereafter, under the instructions of the State Government, the Commissioner thought fit to cancel the order, sanctioning the leave ex post facto in the year 1996. Mr. Oza vehemently submitted that for a period of five years, the Government didn't do anything and permitted the writ applicant to work.