1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3242/1995 Smt. Santosh Goyal vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 18/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Boss for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in 1995, inter alia with the prayer that the respondents be directed to revoke the order of suspension of the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 29.10.1987 may be declared illegal and unconstitutional and be quashed and set aside. The respondents be further directed to pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance from the date she was placed under suspension and that she will be further allowed to resume duty in Government Primary School, Bobas or in any other Government Primary School in Panchayat Samiti Dudu or in any other Panchayat Samiti and the respondents be further directed to pay 2 salary for the month of August, 1986 to 28.2.1987, till the time period when the petitioner actually served. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Panchayat Samiti Makrana, District Nagaur on 30.9.1975. She was transferred from Panchayat Samiti Makrana to Panchayat Samiti Dudu in District Jaipur on 6.11.1978. However, she was thereafter transferred from Dhani Nagan to Village Bobas within Panchayat Samiti Dudu. Feeling aggrieved by that order of transfer, petitioner filed civil suit along with application for temporary inunction initially to Court of Munsif Magistrate, who passed an interim order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. Eventually, the aforesaid order was rejected by order dated 20.2.1987. It is contended that petitioner on the strength of injunction order performed her duties in Government Primary School, Dhani Nagan and, therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to pay 3 to her salary from the period August, 1986 to when she was transferred till 20.2.1987 when the temporary injunction application was rejected. The petitioner thereafter on 6.11.1987 requested the respondents to revoke the order of suspension and also to issue necessary direction for fixing the Headquarters. Followed by another representation on 23.12.1987. The respondents instead of redressing her grievance, issued a charge sheet on her on 29.10.1987, which was sent to her on three different addresses; one at the address of her native place at Village Karansar and another at the permanent address of her father at Sambhar lake and third at the address of her husband's posting i.e. with Punjab National Bank, Phulera. It is contended that the charge against the petitioner that she was willfully absent, was wholly baseless. In any case, the absence of the petitioner was covered by the period when the injunction order was operating, therefore, the period from 19.7.1986 till 20.2.1987 cannot be treated 4 as willful. For subsequent period, petitioner sent application to grant leave, which ought to have been granted. The action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension was wholly unjustified. Petitioner made number of representations that she was willing to join and she be granted fresh posting, which have not been granted. She cannot be held guilty of willful absence. Leaned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Basic Shiksha Parishad & Anr. vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) & Ors.-(2004) 9 SCC 68 and State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan-AIR 1983 SC 803. Learned counsel further argued that despite being required, the respondents have not brought on record, the copy of her termination order referred to in their reply. Shri L.N. Boss, learned counsel for respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the petitioner was transferred from Dhani Nagan to Village Bobas, she did not comply with the order of transfer and instead of joining, approached 5 the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Sambhar Lake by filing an injunction suit, in which an ex-parte injunction order was passed. Later on, that order was vacated, but thereafter the petitioner never joined at Government Primary School, Bobas where she was transferred. There was no question of giving any fresh posting to the petitioner. She has remained willfully absent after she was relieved from Government Primary School Dhani Nagan to Bobas for joining at Bobas on 24.7.1986. It is contended that petitioner was not willing to serve and she went to her husband Shri Rajendra Prasad Goyal who was posted as Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank at Village Karansar District Jaipur. She stayed there and did not join and on account of his non joining, the studies of the students where she posted was suffered. Petitioner submitted fabricated medical certificates covering the period of her absence from 6.8.1986 to 24.8.1986 and by interpolation she made the date from 24.8.1986 to 24.10.1986, thus instead of the figure `8', it was overwritten as `10'. When 6 Medical Officer concerned was approached for verification, he stated that the certificate was given from 6.8.1986 to 24.8.1986 and not to 24.10.1986. Petitioner has admitted that she received copy of the charge sheet, but in fact she never participated in the enquiry. She did not file reply to the charge sheet. Several representations, which have been annexed with the writ petition are all concocted by the petitioner, none of them were submitted to the respondents. It is contended that she was placed under suspension on 2.3.1987 and after disciplinary enquiry her services were terminated on 16.5.1988. The writ petition was filed as late as on 24.7.1995. The writ petition ought to be therefore dismissed for delay and latches. The details of the whole period when the petitioner remained on leave without pay has also been given in the reply. Even if the respondents have not produced on record, copy of order of suspension and termination of the petitioner, but it appears from the writ 7 petition that the petitioner has feigned complete ignorance about the fact that she was terminated and this fact was completely suppressed by her, when the writ petition was filed. It is surprising that the petitioner would be unaware of the fact that the charge sheet was issued to her in 1987 and the proceedings therein would be taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner has admitted the fact that she was issued charge sheet and was also placed under suspension and yet it cannot be assumed that she was not aware that she was terminated. Mere non production of the termination order does not detract from the issue that the writ petition has been filed as long as 7 years after the order of termination and 8 years after she was placed under suspension. The facts of the case clearly show that petitioner was hardly willing to serve the respondents and that she at her own decided not to comply with the transfer order and knowing fully well that she was transferred from Dhani Nagan to Village Bobas, she did not join at that place even after rejection 8 of her injunction application. Her request in so many representations that she be given fresh posting, therefore, cannot be appreciated. The cited cases are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot be applied to the present case. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/