LEELA WATI VERMA Vs. THE POST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Ward Servant in the Post - graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, is aggrieved by order dated Jan. 7, 1987 by which she was ordered to be removed from service. Her appeal against the said order having been rejected, she has approached this Court through the present petition. A few facts may be noticed :

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Ward Servant in the Institute on Feb. 14, 1964. In March, 1985, she applied for leave from 1.4.1985 to 1.5.1985 which was duly sanctioned. Her pray for extension of leave by another two months was accepted on June 18, 1985. She prayed for further extension of leave. On Nov. 2, 1985 she was called upon to resume her duty. She pointed out that she was not keeping well' and as a result she applied for further extension of leave. She also submitted a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer on Jan. 14, 1986. When her application for extension of leave was declined, she served a notice dated May 5,1986 praying that she be permitted to retire from service. A copy of this notice sent by the petitioner has been placed on record as annexure P/2. In spite of the notice a charge-sheet dated June 3,1986 was sent to the petitioner. An ex parte inquiry was held and vide order dated Jan. 10, 1987 she was ordered to be removed from service. She submitted an appeal against this order which was rejected vide order dated July 20 1988. Copy of the order of removal from service has been placed on record as Annexure P/5. Copy of the order rejecting the appeal is Annexure P/10. Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) The order of removal from service has been challenged primarily on two grounds. It is contended that under Fundamental Rule 56(k) an employee has absolute right to seek pre-mature retirement by giving notice of not less than three months. The petitioner having served the requisite notice in accordance with the provision, the respondents have no jurisdiction to treat her as in service after Aug. 4, 1986. The petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from that date and as such no order of removal could have been passed against her, and that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. Secondly it is contended that before passing the impugned order a copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to show cause against the proposed punishment.