T DHANALAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT PROJECT NUTRITION OFFICER DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Child Welfare Assistant in the Child Welfare Centre at Muthiampatti, Erode District. She filed OA No,7873 of 1998 before the Tribunal, challenging an order of the respondent, the District Project Nutrition Officer (DPNO), Erode, dated 6.6.1998. By the said order, the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground that she was absent without prior intimation and without leave and therefore, the affairs of the centre was affected. Her termination was done in the interest of administration and in public interest. Hence she was removed from service without any formal enquiry with effect from 6.6.1998.

(2.) PENDING the OA, the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order, dated 25.9.98, which was also extended until further orders.

(3.) THE ground for the Tribunal to grant an interim order was that in view of the termination order, giving specific reasons for termination, an enquiry must have proceeded before dispensing with the service of the petitioner. In the OA, except by pleadings that the petitioner was holding a civil post coming under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that before removal, reasonable opportunity was to be given, no other grounds are pleaded. It is also seen from the records that subsequent to the proceedings, dated 8.1.1998, the petitioner never reported for duty for more than five months and finally, she was removed from service by an order, dated 6.6.1998. Except by making a bald statement that she never recovered completely from her illness and that she had extended leave along with medical certificate to the Community Nutrition Instructor, the petitioner had not stated anything more.