S SHANMUGAM Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the newly impleaded third respondent.

(2.) The petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.09.1966. He was dismissed from service by the first respondent by an order dated 05.06.2000, based on G.O.Ms.No.1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department, dated 13.11.1987. As per the said order, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 17.07.1997, for more than two years, without sanction of leave. In such circumstances, the first respondent removed the petitioner from service without holding an enquiry, by invoking G.O.Ms.No.1046 .

(3.) It is admitted that the G.O.Ms.No.1046 provides that removal is the only punishment for unauthorized absence. The G.O. was set-aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in a batch of Original Applications in O.A.No.1120 of 1989, on 21/10/1999. In all those cases, termination was based on G.O.Ms.No.1046. The termination orders were quashed and the concerned authorities were directed to proceed under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The Government also implemented the order of the Tribunal and issued G.O.Ms.No.153, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 08.08.2000. Hence, the impugned orders in those Original Applications were set-aside and liberty was given to take departmental action for the unauthorized absence of the petitioners therein.