EEE‘U§§E THE iwkDf-IY;A MWESE‘K IMWLMSIW Nd uUnmL. :Jid3WUF» £$F¥L18NQT z - 5miz. Rama $0ni. VEfi$U5 R§£$§$MJENT$ :- The Eta'te mf iki‘iadhya Pradesh and athers. uEiAiLo 6F NWLICATION x W HIGH COURT OF CI—IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 618 of 2005 I Smt. Rama Soni. VERSUS RFSPONDENTS : The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. ' SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.> Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. , Shri P..K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ‘ ‘ w ‘ ‘ / ORDER 04‘ day of (ORAL) December, 2009) Present: (Passed on Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.7.1991 (Annexure A/7) whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated on account of alleged illegal absence from service; 2t The faéts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed by Bajrang Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur, District Raipur, on the post of Teacher. Thereafter, the management of the school, with entire staff and teachers was taken over by the State Government by order dated 4.5.1983. The petitioner remained absent for sometime on account of certain unavoidable circumstances. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 6.12.1990 (Annexure R/2) by the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur Division, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation asto why a disciplinary proceedings may not be initiated against her. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 12.7.1991 (Annexure A/7) was passed without initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a penalty of termination from service w,e.f. ls‘ July, 1991 was i}t. imposed. Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocatgwith Smt. Meera Jaiswal learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the termination of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for Short ‘the Rules, 1966 ’) and the provisions of M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short ’the Rules, 1977 ’) and the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules, 1965 ’). Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner has been terminated from service under the terms and conditions of the appointment wherein it was clearly provided that the absorption of the school with the petitioner as Teacher was on temporary basis and the services of the petitioner could be w I removed any time with one month’s notice. Accordingly, sinc‘e the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period, her services were terminated. Shri Bhaduri further submits that the provisions of the Rules, 1966 are not applicable to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the respondent authorities have terminated the service of the petitioner without holding proper departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, Contention of the respondent counsel that the provisions of the Rules, 1966 are not applicable to the service conditions of the petitioner is without any basis. It is evident from the fact that even in the show-cause-notice issued to the petitioner, the respondents have relied on provisions of the Rules, 1965. Even in the appointment order, it is clearly mentioned that the absorption is made in Government 3 to service on temporary basis. The terms and conditions with regard period is common in all the appointments made 1 absorption for temporary period \ by the Government. 1 ‘ 7. Rule 24 of the Rules, 1977 provides that if there is willful absence from such government servant is liable for disciplinary . ‘ i ’l duty after expiry of leave, action. Rule 24 of the Rules, 1977 reads as under: \L “24. Absence after expiry of leave. —(1) Unless the authority to grant leave extends the leave, Government W competent servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to and that period no leave salary for the period of such absence shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. from duty after the expiry of leave ‘ ~ ‘ . x i rips , L. t 8. renders (2) Willful a Government absence servant liable to disciplinary action.” Disciplinary action is provided under the provisions of Rules, 1966. Rule V 12 of the Rules, 1966 provides for disciplinary authorities and disciplinary action. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing penalties. Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966 classifies the nature of the penalties i.e. minor penalties and major penalties. Removal from service comes within the purview of “major penalty” under Rule 10(xiii) of the Rules, prescribed under the l . ilk; 1966. 1t is not in dispute that the procedure as provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 has not been followed in this case, if“ ‘ w wherein it is provided that the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. Further, the to be delivered to the w l disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the statement of the misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and , \ imputations of misconduct witnesses. t .\\ \ 4 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of l’rithipal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Othersl, observed as under : 7. The aforesaid record plainly reveals recording of misconduct of the appellant. It records, he has disobeyed the orders of his superiors. Once this is recorded in the service record, which is disclosed by the respondent, it cannot be said there is n0 stigma attached to the order of discharge. Once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order.‘Even Where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. Then opportunity has to be given. It is also not in dispute that no opportunity was given to the appellant before passing the impugned order of discharge. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 12.7.1991 (Annexure A/7) is quashed. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. satish K. Agniiaorri Amit l. 2002 (10) SCC, 133 10. It is not in dispute that the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 have not been followed in this case. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules and is a nullity. It is unsustainable in the eyes of law.