NEELABEN DAHYABHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was originally appointed as a Junior Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 by order dated 25.10.1982 issued by respondent No.1. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk vide office order dated 22.11.1987 and the petitioner was working as class-III employee in the State Government during the entire tenure of almost 18 years. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had to visit abroad, as a result of this, requested for grant of necessary permission from respondent No.1 being head of the department. Initially, vide certificate dated 6.12.1996, such permission was granted to leave the country for London for a period of six months. As a result of this, the petitioner went to London on 9.7.1998. The said period of six months was expired on 8.1.1999 but, on account of unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not come back. As a result of this, an extension of time was sought and the petitioner thereafter resumed on 17.1.2000. For such unauthorized absence, an explanation was given and at a relevant point of time, the respondent No.1 had considered the said explanation for unauthorized period of absence from 9.7.1998 to 16.1.2000 and, therefore, said period was treated as Earned Leave period. For about three months the petitioner worked in the service and then, the husband of the petitioner, who was residing in London, met with an accident. Therefore, the petitioner had to abruptly rush down to London after intimating on 19.4.2000. The petitioner forwarded medical certificate certifying the fact of accident of her husband in London. However, without considering the same, the petitioner was asked to explain about her indiscipline to remain absent unauthorizedly. The petitioner then submitted a leave report on 1.4.2001 for a period of one year before the respondent No.2 for medical treatment at abroad. However, due to the unavoidable circumstances and ill-health, it became essential for the petitioner to leave for London again on or about 7.4.2001 in anticipation of grant of permission for leave, the petitioner left the country.

(3.) Mr.Jayant P. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has basically raised three fold contentions; that the petitioner has been discontinued without holding any proper departmental inquiry and such dismissal is violating Article 311 of the Constitution of India; it has been further submitted that it is incumbent on the part of respondent authority to conduct a regular departmental inquiry and without complying the said process of inquiry at length, it was not open for the authority to discontinue the services. It has further been submitted that the petitioner went abroad after intimating the respondent authority and as such, the petitioner was not at fault in any manner. The petitioner had put on more than 18 years of services with the respondent authority and, therefore, punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the charge which has been levelled. It has been submitted that at the most what has been alleged and proved is the unauthorized absenteeism and the same would not be visited with an action of removal. By submitting this contention, a request is made to allow the petition by granting the relief as prayed for.