IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7626 of 2011 Date of decision : 2.5.2011 Madhu Gandhi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order Annexure P-11 compulsorily retiring her from service with retrospective effect. The petitioner was posted as Supervisor in the office of Child Development and Project Officer, Nagina. She was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1987 on 3.11.2003 for willful absence of duty and for having proceeded to Kanpur without seeking permission of the competent authority. A perusal of the record reveals that she initially applied for medical leave from 19.5.2001 to 22.5.2001 but subsequently she sent her leave from time to time from 31.3.2003 from Kanpur which leave C.W.P.No.7626 of 2011 -2- was rejected by the Child Development and Project Officer, Bawanikhera and she was directed to join her duties immediately. She was then transferred from CDPO, Bawanikhera to CDPO, Kalayat on 29.1.2004 and again to CDPO, Nagina on 3.10.2006. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24.10.2005 who issued various letters to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Such letters were issued on 7.12.2005, 14.12.2005 and 19.1.2006. She, however, refused to respond and did not participate in the enquiry which resulted in the ex-parte report by the Enquiry Officer against her. A show cause notice was issued to her proposing compulsory retirement from service on 8.12.2009 and the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 10.12.2009. The petitioner chose not to appear resulting in passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the petitioner was never served as she was staying with her husband. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner never made any grievance that she was never served with notice issued by the Enquiry Officer. Even when the notice was issued to her subsequent to the enquiry having been concluded, she did not participate in the proceedings. At this stage of the proceedings when the petitioner casually abandoned her job as well as the proceedings which were initiated against her right till the culmination of such proceedings in the year 9.7.2010, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner's C.W.P.No.7626 of 2011 -3- contention that she was never served, is unacceptable. No violation of any law has been shown except for the bald statement that she was not served. Even the order which was passed against the petitioner in February 2010 has been assailed by the petitioner after the expiry of one year which only demonstrates her casual conduct. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 2.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss