BINA DEVI Vs. NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved and challenges Order of respondent No.2 bearing No. NH/SHEP/P&A/RWE/PF/ 2001/4089-99 dated 21.06.2001 whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. 02.04.2001.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds on which the order impugned has been assailed, it would be apposite to refer to the brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the passing of the order impugned by respondent no.4.

(3.) Pursuant to the selection process conducted by respondent No.1, the petitioner came to be appointed as Auxiliary Nurse- Mid-Wife in terms of the order issued by the Personnel and Admn Wing Salal H.E. Project, Jyotipuram (J&K) vide its order No. PNA/Induction/99/5024 dated 09.07.1999. Apart from the other terms and conditions, in terms of the condition No.1.9, the petitioner on her appointment was put on probation for a period of one year which, however, was further extendable if was found necessary. In the aforesaid condition, it was further provided that during the probation period, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason therefor. It was also provided that the services of the petitioner would also be liable to termination by either side on giving one month's notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof etc.etc.Obviously, the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment and joined her services on 23.07.1999 by submitting her joining report with the then Senior Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Mr. Bhatnagar. As claimed by the petitioner she proceeded on casual leave on 20.05.2000 by submitting proper application in the register as per the instructions of respondent No.3, but, on her resumption of duty, the petitioner was asked to handover the said application to one Mst. Kunti (Clerk), who under the instructions of the respondent No.3 and one Dr.B.K.Lal destroyed the said application. All this, alleges the petitioner, was done by the respondents with a view to harass her and spoil her service career. The petitioner further submits that because of the aforesaid development, the attitude of the respondent No.3 became revengeful and harassment of the petitioner at the hands of respondent No.3 started. The warning letter dated 29.05.2000 followed by memorandum containing statement of imputation dated 08.06.2000 served upon the petitioner were the initial steps taken by the respondent No.3 in a run up to destroying the service career of the petitioner and laying foundation for her ultimate ouster from service. The petitioner states that she submitted her reply to the imputation of alleged misconduct by way of representation dated 14.06.2000. Instead of accepting the explanation tendered by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 got further infuriated and served her with a warning letter to be careful in future. This warning was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 30.06.2000. The petitioner protested and made another representation to the respondent No.3 on 15.07.2000. It further transpires that with a view to put quietus on the contentious issue of alleged absence of the petitioner without leave on 20.05.2000, the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to submit casual leave for 20.05.2000 so that his absence marked for the day was regularised. The petitioner appears to have vehemently contested the claim of the respondent No.3 and took the stand that on the date she availed the casual leave, she had made a written application for casual leave, which was misplaced by the respondents. She, however, appears to have succumbed later and, as directed, the petitioner submitted formal application for casual leave for 20.05.2000 with the request that all explanations and warning letters served upon her be withdrawn. So far so good, but, the trouble did not stop. The petitioner once again applied for 18 days earned leave w.e.f. 03.10.2000 and on its sanction proceeded on leave. The earned leave was to expire on 21.10.2000, as claimed, in- between the petitioner got married on 11.10.2000 and therefore, before the expiry of the sanction earned leave, the petitioner applied for half pay leave, which too was sanctioned in her favour w.e.f. 22.10.2000 to 01.11.2000. The petitioner further states that while she was availing this extended half pay leave, she fell ill and was, thus, constrained to once again apply for extra-ordinary leave w.e.f. 02.11.2000 to 01.01.2001. The petitioner asserts that after availing the aforesaid three different spells of leave, she attended her office on 03.01.2001 by submitting her joining report, but, respondent No.3 did not allow her to join. Despite the fact that the petitioner had submitted the joining report on 03.01.2001 and had not been permitted by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3, instead, issued letter dated 06.01.2001 bearing No. SHP/201/2506 calling upon the petitioner to join her duties within three days. The petitioner submits that although this letter was written on 06.01.2001, but, the same was delivered to her in the last week of January, 2001. The petitioner after having received the aforesaid letter from the respondent No.3 once again requested the respondents to extend her leave on medical grounds and submitted a representation dated 03.01.2001 through registered post. The petitioner, thereafter, came across a notice published in the daily excelsior newspaper in its edition dated 25.03.2001 by virtue of which the petitioner had been asked to show cause within seven days as to why she should not be removed from the service of the Corporation. The petitioner claims that she responded by submitting a representation through telegram No.0114 dated 27.03.2001, which the respondent No.3 refused to acknowledge. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of considering her request for extension of leave on medical grounds, the respondent No.3 managed the issuance of order impugned whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. In the backdrop of above-narrated facts, the petitioner assails the order impugned inter alia on the following grounds:-