Rashpal Kaur vs Principal Secretary, Govt. of Punjab and Others

Arun Palli, J.—A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for as to set aside the order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No. 2, vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service. As also the order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P3), passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of her dismissal and rejecting her appeal. Petitioner was engaged as Science Mistress in Government Senior Secondary School, Lamma Jatpura, District Ludhiana. She proceeded on Ex-India leave to New Zealand on 05.04.2001. As she never re-joined the duty, despite expiry of her leave period, she was charge sheeted on 24.10.2006, under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short ''the Rules'') on account of unauthorised absence w.e.f. 01.07.2002. No reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner. And an inquiry was ordered to probe the charges against her. Pursuant to an order dated 28.07.2009, Smt. Harpal Kaur, District Education Officer (Secondary Education), was appointed as inquiry officer. The misconduct of the petitioner was duly established in the departmental inquiry. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner at her given address i.e. H. No. 3-R, Hira Bagh, Jagraon, District Ludhiana and she was asked to submit her response, in writing or appear personally. However, neither did the petitioner submit any reply nor appeared personally to explain her viewpoint. Still, a joint placard/notice that reflects the name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 2, was published in the newspaper on 31.08.2014. And vide said public notice, the petitioner was again afforded yet another opportunity to present her viewpoint, within a further period of 21 days from the date of publication, by appearing before the Director Education Department (Secondary Education), Punjab. Again, neither did the petitioner submit any reply nor appeared before the Director Education. That being so, it was concluded that the petitioner was no longer interested in continuing in government service. Accordingly, her services were terminated, for having intentionally absented from government duty continuously since 01.07.2002, under Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, vide order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure P1). The petitioner, who, all this while, remained absent from duty and did not choose to participate in the departmental proceedings, suddenly arrives and assails the order of dismissal by filing an appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the case set out by her was that on account of the ill health of her husband and follow up treatment she had to stay back in New Zealand. Besides her, there was no one else to look after her husband and small children. And in the meanwhile, when her husband was under treatment, she even lost her mother who died of blood cancer on 12.11.2008. As a result, she had to even look after her father. She used to send without pay leave applications to the Principal, Senior Secondary School, Lamma Jatpura, something which could be ascertained from the school record.

However, on an analysis of the matter in issue, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the appellate authority rejected the appeal moved by the petitioner and affirmed the order of dismissal, vide order dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure P3). That is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

All what has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded due and adequate opportunity to defend herself, before she was dismissed from service. Secondly, she had been sending applications for leave without pay, to the Principal of the school, and, thus, she could not be accused of having wilfully absented from duty. Further, she had rendered 18 years of service, before she was dismissed, and, thus, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, he contends that a lesser punishment could be awarded by the disciplinary authority.

On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue, I am of the considered view that the instant petition is wholly devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed for the reasons that are being recorded hereinafter. Concededly, the petitioner proceeded on Ex-India leave to New Zealand on 05.04.2001. Despite expiry of the leave period on 01.07.2002, the petitioner never reported for duty. Consequently, she continuously remained absent nearly for a period of 13 years w.e.f. 01.07.2002 to 09.01.2015, when her services were terminated. Nothing is brought on record to point out that she ever moved any application to the competent authority either for extension of leave or applied for leave without pay. Thus, her absence was wilful and without any sanctioned leave by the competent authority. Nothing is brought on record to show that in these 13 years she even once contacted or communicated with the Department. The misconduct of the petitioner was duly proved in the departmental inquiry. Records show that due and adequate opportunity, as indicated above, at every relevant stage of the proceedings, was afforded to the petitioner. But she did not choose to participate in the proceedings and defend herself. Apparently, she was fully conscious and alive to the departmental proceedings, and that is how, immediately after her dismissal, she suddenly arrives on 06.02.2015 and files an appeal before the appellate authority. She just chose to sit by the bay and watch, and now when her services were terminated, she had no j other option but to present herself. As she had moved to New Zealand 13 years ago, it is writ large that she had no mind, intent and will to rejoin. It may be true that her husband fell ill and she had other compulsions but 13 years is a bit too long a period which falsifies her claim. The submission being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate, is equally misconceived and cannot be countenanced. In the wake of the position as sketched out above, to my mind, awarding lesser punishment to the petitioner would be rewarding the misconduct. No doubt, she had rendered 18 years of service but she does not have any explanation, least plausible, to justify a wilful absence from duty for a period of 13 years. She demonstrated a brazen insensitivity towards her service, obligations and duties. Without a doubt, the petition is purely speculative in nature and lacks bona fides. Ex facie, the petitioner is not litigating to serve but to draw the service benefits.

In the make of the position as set out above, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is warranted. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed, in limine.