(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH) 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5665 of 2001. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was working as Auxiliary Nurse- Midwife. In the year 1997, her services came to be terminated in view of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by her during the tenure of her service. Charge sheet was issued and the appellant was required to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. She did not tender any satisfactory reply. Hence departmental inquiry was conducted and second show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to explain as to why major penalty should not be imposed. Subsequently after taking into account relevant aspects, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by order dated 26.8.1997. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application which was disposed of in the year 1999 with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate authority. Thereafter appeal was filed against the termination order which was rejected on 28.5.2001 by the appellate authority and hence Special Civil Application No. 5665 of 2001 was preferred which was dismissed by order dated 16.11.2010 by the learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in considering the aspect that punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but not permissible as per settled legal position when the appellant could not remain present before the departmental inquiry proceedings. She also submitted that the appellant was not provided with copy of the charge sheet and other documents were not communicated to her and therefore she could not remain present in the inquiry. She has further stated that the representation made for reducing the penalty without admitting any of the charges, was not considered at all and without giving an opportunity to be heard, the order dated 26.8.1997 of removal from service was passed. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected on 28.5.2001 by opponent No.3 on the ground that the Special Civil Application No.9013 of 1997 was rejected by this Court. It is submitted by her that the appellant worked satisfactorily till 23.6.1991. and thereafter she went for maternity leave and thereafter she could not resume duty because of her deteriorating bad health and other social problems including the transfer request to the place where her husband is posted which was also rejected by the opponents. She has finally submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.
3. We have heard the learned counsel Ms. Bhavika Kotecha for the appellant. On perusal of the record, it seems that the appellant was very irregular in reporting for duty and discharging her duties. She remained absent from duty for 554 days. Though duly served, the appellant neither participated in the proceedings nor made out any ground. In absence of any reply/satisfactory explanation about the charges, departmental inquiry was ordered and the charges were proved. On examination of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charge of remaining continuously and repeatedly absent without leave and adversely affecting the working of the health centre were proved. Hence the second show cause notice calling for explanation as to why major penalty should not be imposed was issued and thereafter considering the entire record, the order of termination of service of the appellant was passed. The appellant never disputed or denied any of the factual details in the charge sheet and/or the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge has observed in the concluding paragraphs that at the time of hearing of the petition, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the case in detail on the basis of the material available on record.
4. From the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit or substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order referred above dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence in our considered view, the said order does not warrant any interference by this court. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
[D. H. WAGHELA, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp