POOJA BAGDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2019, whereby the respondent No.2 has taken a decision regarding grant of leave to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2019 and order dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-P/21), whereby the petitioner is transferred from District Harda to District Neemuch.

(3.) Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner joined at Harda in the year 2005 as Peon. After remaining for sometime at Ujjain in the year 2009, she came back to District Harda in the same year. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Grade-III in the establishment of respondent No.2. The genesis of present dispute arose in the year 2018 when petitioner was subjected to discrimination and harassment. The petitioner was transferred to the post of Order Writer on 22.09.2018. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 04.10.2018 alleging that petitioner was absent from work without giving any information. Petitioner filed her reply on 09.10.2018 (Annexure-P/3). The petitioner was continuously unwell and applied for medical leave, earned leave etc., such applications are cumulatively filed as Annexure-P/4. The petitioner made a request to sanction leave so that she can give representation to Registrar General and to Hon'ble Chief Justice. The said request was also rejected on 15.11.2018. The petitioner continued to suffer medically. The respondents passed the order dated 24.12.2018 and was directed to appear before the Medical Board, Harda on 02.01.2019 & 14.01.2019. The Medical Board gave its opinion dated 15.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner received communications dated 19.01.2019 & 20.03.2019 (Annexure-P/8 & P/9) respectively. The petitioner was directed to submit the certificate of Psychiatrist from Indore/Bhopal. It is alleged that petitioner has not filed said certificate till date. The applications filed by the petitioner were also not in consonance with rules. The argument of Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's communications dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure-P/10) and 02.04.2019 (Annexure-P/11) show that she has been harassed by the respondents. This harassment ultimately culminated with issuance of impugned order dated 08.05.2019, whereby only 61 days of medical leave was sanctioned in her favour vide order dated 08.05.2019, whereas the entire leave claimed by her should have been sanctioned. The charge-sheet is nothing but an outcome of such harassment. Hence, charge-sheet is liable to be interfered with. Lastly, the petitioner is transferred by order dated 27.06.2019, which is bad in law.