State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Sobha Rawat

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 16/NB/DB/2016 dated 03.04.2018.

The respondent-claim petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal seeking to have the order of removal dated 25.04.2015, passed by the authorities, quashed; and to direct the petitioners herein to permit the respondent-claim petitioner to resume her duties as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School with all consequential benefits.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent-claim petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 24.01.2009 and, pursuant thereto, joined the Government Primary School, Jamal, Block Dwarikhal, District Pauri Garhwal on 2.02.2009. She was sanctioned maternity leave for eighty-two days from 02.07.2009 to 21.09.2009. Thereafter, she submitted an application to the Block Education Officer, Dwarikhal on 23.06.2011 seeking sanction of leave without pay due to health and family circumstances. A press-release was issued on 16.12.2014 to the effect that the petitioner was continuously absent since 24.06.2011, and she was asked to report to duty within ten days. The respondent-claim petitioner claims to have reported to duty on 23.12.2014. By letter dated 24.01.2015, a report was sought from the Deputy Education Officer regarding the respondent-claim petitioner having joined duty. Thereafter, an order of termination was issued on 25.04.2015 under Fundamental Rule 18, which stipulates, among others, that absence beyond five years will attract the provisions of the rules relating to disciplinary proceedings.

In the order, impugned in the writ petition, the Tribunal has held that, though FR 18 only stipulates that the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings were applicable, neither was a charge sheet issued to the respondent-writ petitioner, nor were disciplinary proceedings held against her; and Rule 7(17), of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2010, was not attracted.

With regards the petitioners' contention that Rule 7(17) was attracted, the Tribunal extracted Rule 7(17) in its entirety, and held that Rule 7(17) had no application to the case on hand. Consequently, the order of termination dated 25.04.2015 was declared illegal and set aside. While directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent-claim petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the order, the Tribunal made it clear that it was open to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the respondent-claim petitioner in accordance with law; the question regarding payment of salary, for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, would be decided by the competent authority at the appropriate time during the inquiry, or after the inquiry, as per law; and they had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

As noted hereinabove, the petitioner was appointed on 24.0.01.2009, and joined duty on 02.02.2009. It is not in dispute that the 2003 Rules are applicable to her. Consequently, she could only have been removed from service on a charge-sheet being issued to her for an act of misconduct, (which, in the present case, would be absence from duty without leave), and after a disciplinary inquiry was held against her. On this short ground, the order of termination, which was subjected to challenge in the claim petition, was quashed by the Tribunal.

The petitioners' interest was adequately safeguarded by the Tribunal, leaving it open to them to take action afresh against the respondent-claim petitioner, which would mean that it was open to the petitioners herein to issue a charge-sheet, conduct a disciplinary inquiry, and thereafter impose such penalty, as they considered appropriate, in accordance with law. The petitioners herein have also not been mulcted with payment of back-wages to the respondent-claim petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the question regarding payment of salary, for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, was required to be decided by the appropriate authority either during, or after, the disciplinary inquiry.

The relief, sought for in this writ petition, is for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Tribunal. Such a writ is issued only when the order, impugned in the writ petition, suffers from an error apparent on the face of record (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others: AIR 1964 SC 477). We find no such infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.