1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5640/2002. : : Dr. Deepika Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination dated 2.3.2002 by which services of petitioner, who was appointed on probation for two years on the post of Medical Officer and absented from duties from 11.1.2001 and did not report back for more than six months, were terminated. 3. Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner could not attend the duties because she got married and that she had left the duties after duly sanctioned leave on 8.1.2001 to 10.1.2001. 2 When petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Medical Officer by RPSC she was unmarried. After her appointment was made on 30.10.2000 she got married to one Dr. Rajeev Tomer and due to family circumstances and owing on account of marital obligation, petitioner could not attend the duties. She submitted leave application for three days from 8.1.2001 to 10.1.2001 and then proceeded on leave, but could not report back. Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, therefore, respondents could not be terminate her services without holding an enquiry of disciplinary proceedings, if at all she was removed from service on the ground of willful absence. Mere issuance of notice calling for explanation of petitioner would not suffice the purpose and order of removal was thus passed in utter violation of Rule 16 of CCA Rules and violation of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 4. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was granted casual leave only for two days i.e. 9.1.2001 and 10.1.2001 and thereafter when she did not turn up, a notice was sent to her on 6.2.2001. Even than she continued to remain absent and thereafter the Director, 3 Medical & Health Services sent a notice to her on 11.6.2001. Even than she did not appear on duty. Even during probation her services were not satisfactory, therefore, by invoking Rule 29 of Rajasthan Medical & Health Services Rules, 1963 her services were terminated w.e.f. 6.5.2001. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that petitioner was on probation having been appointed for a period to two years. During the period of probation, petitioner was on leave for two days i.e. 9.1.2001 and 10.1.2001 and then stopped attending the duties. Even it is not the case of petitioner that she turned up on duties at any point of time. In the impugned order dated 2.3.2002 the date of initial appointment of petitioner was indicated as 26.11.2000. It would thus be evident that she worked with respondents only for a period of two and half months out of the aforesaid period. The respondent served notice upon petitioner on 7.5.2001 to attend the duties, but she did not respond the same. The matter was sent to Director, Medical & Health Services, Jaipur and he sent notice to petitioner on 11.6.2001. Contention that even on the face of such facts respondents could not terminate her services without holding 4 the enquiry of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCA Rules cannot be accepted. Other contention that termination order dated 2.3.2002 could not be given retrospective effect from 6.5.2001 also cannot be accepted because the Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sub-Division-I, Tonk issued notices to petitioner on 6.2.2001 and on 6.6.2001 and it is thereby that the respondents deemed the service of petitioner as having come to an end. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.44.