THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.88 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent – Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 28.11.2002 in Rc.No.4/59/89/H2 passed by the Director of the respondent – institute, in terminating the petitioner from service, who was working as Dietician, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was working as Dietician in the respondent – institute and pursuing Ph.D in the Osmania University, and hence, she was granted earned leave from 28.8.2001 to 30.12.2001 and E.O.L. from 31.12.2001 to 27.2.2002, in all, she was granted leave for a period of 184 days for the purpose of study. She sought for extension of leave from 28.2.2002 to 28.3.2003. The said request was initially negatived by proceedings dated 8.2.2002 and based on her assurance that she would join duty, she was granted E.O.L from 28.2.2002 to 27.4.2002. However, the petitioner sought for further extension for another month vide letter dated 27.4.2002 and her request was rejected and she was directed to report to duty immediate vide letter dated 20.5.2002. But she has not reported to duty. Therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry and he issued letters dated 13.7.2002 and 24.7.2002 to the petitioner to appear before him and she failed to attend and hence the enquiry officer submitted report dated 24.8.2002 and based on the report, the petitioner was issued show cause notice and pursuant to the same, the petitioner sought for extension of leave. Having found the explanation submitted by the petitioner as not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Director of the Institute, passed the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2002 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 28.4.2002. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she sought for extension of leave from 28.2.2002 for a further period of seven months, as she was out of station and unable to join duty. The said application dated 27.4.2002 was not considered by the respondents. Further to the charge memo dated 28.5.2002, she filed reply on 12.6.2002 stating that due to family and health problems, she could not report for duty and sought for extension of leave up to the end of November, 2002 on humanitarian grounds. But the same was also not considered. Her further case is that the enquiry officer sent letter dated 13.7.2002 to attend the enquiry on 22.7.2002, but she received the said letter on 22.7.2002 at 3-00 p.m. and, therefore, she sought for conducting of enquiry in the month of October, 2002 in view of her domestic problems. But without considering her request, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry on 1.8.2002 and submitted report dated 24.8.2002 holding that the charges of unauthorized absence, as proved. Her grievance is that as per the NIMS Employees Appeal and Control rules, detailed procedure for imposing major punishment is prescribed and without following the procedure and without issuing any charge memo as per Rule 8 of the said rules and without seeking the explanation, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and hence the impugned order of termination is illegal and contrary to law. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that there is no dispute that the petitioner was granted leave from 28.8.2001 to 27.2.2002 for the purpose of completing Ph.D. After completion of the leave, again the petitioner sought for extension for another thirteen months from 28.2.2002 to 28.3.2003. However, she was granted leave from 28.2.2002 to 27.4.2002 and she was informed to join duty immediately after the expiation of leave, due to requirement of her services in the Department. Again she failed to join duty and sought for extension of leave for eight months. The said request was rejected. Hence, her absence from 28.4.2002 has to be treated as unauthorized, since there was no sanction of leave and it amounts to violation of sub para (ii) (1) of para 4 of NIMS Standing Order no.30. As per Rule 6 to the explanation II to para 4 of NIMS Employees Conduct Standing Orders, 1995, Habitual late attendance, habitual absence without permission and overstaying leave amounts to ‘misconduct’. 7. Further as per Rule 8 of the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Employees (Control and Appeal) Rules, for imposing major penalty, framing of charge and appointment of enquiry officer is contemplated, who shall based on the material, submits report. In the present case, by proceedings dated 28.5.2002, the petitioner was informed about the charge of her unauthorized absence and the grounds of charges were also mentioned. To the said proceedings dated 28.5.2002, the petitioner submitted explanation that due to family and health problems, she is unable to report for duty and sought for extension of leave up to the end of November, 2002. From this letter, it could to be noticed that the petitioner stated in a casual manner without any supporting evidence with regard to her health condition. She only stated that due to family and health problems, she could not report to duty. This can never be considered as satisfactory explanation, in the absence of any material and more particularly when charges are framed against her and enquiry is contemplated. 8. In view of these circumstances, the enquiry officer was appointed and he, after issuing notice to the petitioner, commenced the enquiry proceedings. Though the case of the petitioner is that she received the notice on 22.7.2002 at 3 p.m. from the enquiry officer and hence could not attend the enquiry, it is be noticed that the petitioner sought the enquiry officer to conduct enquiry at the end of October, 2002. This request of the petitioner is unreasonable and the enquiry officer cannot be expected to wait till the end of October, 2002 and as he is directed to conduct the enquiry, after issuing necessary notice, he commenced the proceeding on 24.8.2002 i.e., after a period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. The petitioner did not evince any interest and choose to remain ex parte and having no other option, the enquiry officer found that the charge of unauthorized absence against the petitioner as proved. 9. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. To this show cause notice, the petitioner again requested for grant of leave up to 30.12.2002 and the respondent rightly found the said explanation as not satisfactory and imposed the penalty of termination from service, which cannot be interfered with. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 07—06—2010