SEEMA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, a Doctor, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 18/11/2009. The contention of the petitioner is that she is holding a Post Graduate Degree and was selected by the MP Public Service Commission for the post of Asstt. Surgeon and was posted at Community Health Centre, Chanderi, on 13/8/2002. The petitioner on account of illness proceeded on leave in the year 2003 and submitted medical certificate to the authorities on 24/6/2004. Petitioner has further stated that as her condition deteriorated, she went for advance treatment to Delhi and kept on submitting medical certificates to the authorities. Petitioner has further stated that to her utter surprise, a charge sheet was issued on 11/2/2005 by the competent disciplinary authority and the petitioner was directed to submit a reply and the petitioner did submit a reply to the charges levelled against her.

(2.) Petitioner has further stated that she was finally directed to appear before the enquiry officer and the petitioner did appear before the enquiry officer and also placed all the documents in respect of her illness before the enquiry officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the document submitted by her before the enquiry officer were not looked and enquiry officer has held the charges established. Petitioner has further stated that the enquiry report was submitted on 20 th June, 2005 and thereafter the petitioner was permitted to join by the State Government on 24/5/2006. Petitioner has further stated that she kept on serving the State Government, however, to her utter surprise an order was passed terminating her on 18/11/2009 on account of her absence which was subject matter of the Departmental Enquiry. The contention of the petitioner is that Departmental Enquiry has not been held keeping in view the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and as the documents submitted by the petitioner have not been looked into in respect of her illness, the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Other grounds have also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and his contention is that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent employee as a capital punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner even though she was permitted to join after completion of the Departmental Enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dt. 18/11/2009.

(3.) A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent State is that the petitioner was absent since 10/9/2004 without any permission and without any leave sanctioned by the Department and, therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 15/12/2004 seeking explanation and directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board. It has been stated that as no reply was received from the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued on 11/2/2005 and thereafter the petitioner did submit a reply to the charges levelled against her. It has also been stated that after conducting the Departmental Enquiry, the enquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct and the resport was forwarded to the M P Public Service Commission and the M P Public Service Commission has also opined to impose a major punishment upon the petitioner. Respondents have stated that they have followed the prescribed procedure in accordance with law and therefore no case for interference is made out in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.