P JANAKI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that she was selected for appointment to the post of Typist, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on merits, and she had joined in service on 31.8.1974. After qualifying herself for the appointment to the post of Steno Typist, she was appointed to the said post on 11.1.1982, after getting the concurrence from the Government. THE petitioner has further stated that while she was working as a Steno Typist in the Revenue Divisional Office, Coimbatore, she had applied for medical leave, for a period of two months from 6.8.1987, due to her ill-health. Due to the deterioration of her health, she had applied for unearned leave on loss of pay. When she was on leave, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 13.11.1987, stating that a Government servant who had completed five years of service cannot be absent or go on leave for a period of one year, continuously. If the Government servant is absent or goes on leave beyond the said period the said Government servant can be removed from service. Since the petitioner was on leave, she was not aware of the said Government Order. However, she was intimated about the Government Order and she was asked to join duty, immediately, by a memo, dated 11.10.1988, issued by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Coimbatore. THE said memo had been received by the petitioner, on 29.10.1988. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had applied for being posted, vide her letter, dated 31.10.1988. On the basis of her letter, dated 31.10.1988, she was given the posting by an order, dated 1.12.1988, passed by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Coimbatore.

(3.) SINCE the disciplinary action had already been instituted and a punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner, the first respondent had observed that the punishment of censure imposed on the petitioner by the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Coimbatore, is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges held proved. Therefore, under Rule 36(1)(i) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the first respondent had taken up a suo motu revision of the order passed by the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Coimbatore, dated 8.9.1992 and had decided to enhance the punishment into that of removal from service for the proved charges of unauthorised absence from services for more than one year. Accordingly, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice in Letter No.96548/K1/90-7, Revenue Department, dated 21.9.1995, to the petitioner, as provided under Rule 36(1)(i) of the Tamil Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why she should not be imposed with the enhanced punishment of removal from service for the proved charges. The show cause notice was served on the petitioner, on 4.10.1995.