(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2618 OF 1994 Smt. Vanaja d/o. Madhukarrao Deshpande, Aged : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. c/o. K.G. Aloorkar, Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Division, Opp. Amber Hotel, Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. Syndicate Bank (Through its General Manager (Personnel), PDIRD, H.O. Manipal, Karnataka. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay 400 005. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 26TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 16-11-1993, thereby compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as an employee of the respondent no.2 / Bank. 2. The petitioner was working as a Rural Development Officer. At the relevant time, the petitioner was transferred to Jalna. The petitioner just after joining for a day, remained absent from duty. The departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Charge sheet came to be issued on 9-11-1992. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was with regard to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 29-8-1987 to 30-5-1992 and since 6th July 1992 onwards. The second charge which was with regard to failure on the part of the petitioner, to comply with the instructions of the higher authorities to rejoin the duties, tantamounting to insubordination / disobeying the orders of the superiors. 3. The departmental proceedings proceeded. The (3) petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings though she had filed a statement of defence. After examining one witness and taking into account the defence of the present petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 12th April 1994. 4. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the whole proceedings were held behind the back of the petitioner and, as such, elementary principles of natural justice were flouted. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the case. The notices were issued at Jalna Branch where she was not working at that time. 5. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, also contended that as far as earlier absence is concerned, the said leave was sanctioned. The petitioner, as of right, is entitled for the maternity leave as per the regulations. The same has been denied to her. An absence, on that count, would not be a ground to pass the impugned order. He has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another ((2000)3 Supreme Court Cases 224), to buttress his (4) contention, that the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave, as of right. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / Bank, submitted that the petitioner hardly worked with the Bank and was all along absent from duty. Even when she was transferred to Jalna, she just joined for a day and thereafter again was absent. The petitioner was time and again requested to join the services but she did not adhere to the request of the Bank and, as such, has also disobeyed the orders which is in violation of Regulation No.3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 7. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is manifest that the petitioner was absent for a considerable long period. In fact, when she was in service before the impugned order was passed, she was more absent from duty than having worked with the respondent no.2 / Bank. The Inquiry Officer has given, in detail, the period of absence of the petitioner, from duty, as under : 1) 07-06-1989 to 17-01-1991 2) 05-04-1991 to 14-04-1992 3) 28-04-1992 to 05-07-1992 4) 07-07-1992 to till the date of impugned order. (5) No plausible explanation is given for her absence for such a long period, right from 7-6-1989 to 17-1-1991, so also, from 5-4-1991 to 14-4-1992. During this period, the maternity leave was sanctioned to the petitioner from 17-11-1989 to 17-12-1990. So also, from 7-7-1992, the petitioner was absent, till the date of passing of the impugned order. 8. There cannot be any debate on the proposition, that the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave as of right. The said leave, earlier was granted for 90 days. Even assuming that on the second occasion she was entitled to the said maternity leave, still the absence of the petitioner right since 1989 is inordinate and abnormal. 9. The contention of the petitioner, that no opportunity was given to her, cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that ample letters were issued to her at the place where she was posted. Even she has filed a statement of defence. She had communicated that it is not possible for her to attend the inquiry at Bombay. As such, the inquiry was also scheduled at Jalna. There also, she did not remain present. For that, the respondent / Bank cannot be blamed. 10. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over (6) the findings in the departmental inquiry. There are concurrent findings of the disciplinary authority, so also, the appellate authority. The said findings cannot be said to be based on no evidence or record. The findings are plausible one. This Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, would not interfere with the said findings as the same is not unreasonable. 11. In the light of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2618