1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1551 OF 2000 Mrs. Suman M Patil .. Petitioner -versus The Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors .. Respondents. Mr. Sarang Aradhye, for the petitioner Ms S. M. Modle, for the respondent corporation. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 12th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Shri. Aradhye, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms S.M. Modle, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition challenges the enquiry report dated November 24, 1999, made by respondent No.5 Smt. Rachana Chavan, Deputy Education Officer, as also the order dated January 20, 2000, issued by Deputy 2 Education Officer. Zone II, of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, terminating the services of the petitioner after the close of school hours of November 14, 1999. 3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present petition may be briefly stated as under: The petitioner was appointed as trained teacher on August 4, 1980. It is her grievance that she was frequently transferred from time to time against the policy of transfer framed by the Municipal Commissioner under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that the transfers were effected as per whims and fancies of Shri.Dandavate, the then Education Officer of the first respondent. The petitioner contends that by order dated January 7, l994, she was suspended as she protested against the transfer order. She challenged the suspension order before the Industrial Court, which granted stay to her suspension. She was allowed to resume duties. After her resumption, the then Education Officer Shri. Dandavate, issued another suspension order on April 26, 3 l994 on the ground of commission of theft by the petitioner. She contends that she was falsely implicated for the commission of offence under section 383 Indian Penal Code and pursuant thereto, she was suspended on April, 26, l994. Enquiry was conducted against her by issuing chargesheet which was duly replied by her. In substance the petitioner contends that she was harassed by frequently transferring her; by lodging false criminal cases against her; by holding departmental enquiry aginst her. It is in these circumstances the impugned order came to be passed on January 20, 2000 terminating the services on the ground that she was continuously absent from duty since November l5, 1994. 4. On behalf of respondent corporation, affidavit of Smt. Bharti J Desai, Administrative Officer (S) P/S Ward, Municipal Office, Goregaon (W), Mumbai was made. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was working with Kasturba School No.l, Borivali. She was transferred to the school situated at Unnatnagar No.l, Goregaon (W). However, she continuously remained 4 absent from November 15, 1994. She was issued various letters under Registered Post AD, which she declined to accept. Eventually by letter dated June 11, 1999, Administrative Officer P/S Division, called upon the petitioner to attend his office for collecting the order of resumption of duties in school and accordingly resume school by June 30, 1999. Though the petitioner received this letter on June 22, 1999, she did not attend the office of the Administrative Officer. On the other hand she gave reply on June 23, 1999, threatening to institute suit against the Administrative Officer. The case of respondent is despite calling upon the petitioner to resume duties right from 1995, she failed and neglected to join duties. Accordingly notice dated November 24, 1999, was issued to the petitioner setting out therein that she was absent from duties from November 15, 1994 and the number of days of continuous absence from duty as mentioned in B.M.C. (Service) Rules & Regulations, 1989 had been crossed by her. As per memo dated June 11, 1999, she was asked to resume duties on or before June 5 30, 1999, which was also ignored by her. She was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why her name should not be deleted from the muster of municipal services. 5. After receipt of this show cause notice, the petitioner gave reply on December 10, 1999. Perusal of the reply indicates that the petitioner neither showed any cause for her absence from November 15, l994 nor for not joining duty on or before June 30, 1999. It is in these circumstances, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated January 20, 2000. 6. In support of this petition, Shri. Aradhey, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that from the material on record, it would be abundantly clear that the petitioner was harassed by frequently transferring from one school to another. When she was initially suspended, she approached the Industrial Court and obtained stay. After resumption of duties again she was falsely implicated for commission of offence of theft under section 383 Indian Penal Code. She was not 6 allowed to resume duties though she was all along ready and willing. The material on record would clearly depict harassment meted out by the respondent. 7. On the other hand learned counsel Ms Modle, for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was never interested in serving school at Unnatnagar, Goregaon; after she was transferred from Kasturba School No.l Borivali to Unnatnagar School at Goregaon (W). She did not resume duties wef November 15, 1994. She was issued several letters in the past by registered post AD namely EOQ/OD/28 dated February 14, 1995 and EOQ/950 dated April 8, l995, calling upon her to resume duties. Apart from this she was given one more opportunity by Administrative Officer P/South; by issuing memo dated June 11, 1999 which was duly received by her on June 22, 1999 asking her to resume duties on or before June 30, 1999. Instead of complying with this requisition, she gave reply on June 23, l999, threatening the Administrative Officer that she will institute suit against them. Thus, she did not avail of this opportunity 7 as well. Ultimately show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on November 24, l999 as to why her name be not deleted from the muster of municipal services. The petitioner gave reply on December 10, 1999 and did not give any satisfactory explanation. She was eventually terminated by impugned order dated January, 20, 2000. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are more than satisfied that the petitioner was never interested in serving with the respondent corporation. If at all the petitioner had grievances of her transfer from Kasturba School No.l, Borivali to Unnatnagar School at Goregaon, she could have ventilated her grievances properly. Instead of ventilating her grievances, properly, she stopped attending duties from November 15, l994. As observed earlier. Respondent No.l issued letters which she declined to accept. Despite that one more opportunity was given to the petitioner to join duties on or before June 30, 1999. Even then she did not avail of this opportunity. Having regard to the Mumbai Mahangarpalika (Service) Rules and Regulations, l989, 8 the petitioner was absent continuously for more than five years. It is only thereafter the show cause notice was issued to her on November 24, l999 and after finding her reply was not satisfactory the impugned order dated January 20, 2000, was passed. We do not find any fault with the actions of the first respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner. In fact on several occasions, indulgence was shown to the petitioner and she was called upon to resume duties. No fault can be found with actions of the respondent in terminating the services of a teacher, who is not interested in attending the duties . 9. In the result, the petition fails and the rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)