Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 250 (MP)

Rajni Yadav v. State of M. P.

2008-02-14

R.K.GUPTA

body2008
JUDGMENT R.K. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner by Shri Anoop Shrivastava, Advocate. Respondents by Shri S.S. Bisen, G.A. They are heard. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 28.3.2005 and the order dated 15.2.2006 may be declared as illegal and improper, The petitioner has also claimed for an appropriate direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 3. The facts leading to the present case are that on the relevant date, the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk. She was absent from her duties for a period from 1997 to 2002, therefore, a show cause notice, was issued to the petitioner on 3.2.2005 which is Annexure P/10 to the petition According to the respondents the petitioner did not join her duties and was remaining absent, therefore, the respondents passed the order of dismissal which is Annexure P/1 dated 28.3.2005. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal (Annexure P/1) to the appellate authority and the appellate authority also by passing the order Annexure P/2 dated 15.2.2006 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner did not appear for the duty as directed to her by letter dated 1.12.1998 and she has not furnished the relevant certificate of her being sick, therefore, the appeal was rejected. 5. The petitioner has also applied for her voluntary retirement under Rule 42 of M.P. Government Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. The letter submitted by the petitioner is filed on record as Annexure P/9. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner has not been considered and the said application has not been decide and meanwhile the services of the petitioner have been (sic) 6. The respondents issued a letter on 21424998 (Annexure P/5) whereby the petitioner was directed to Appear before the Medical Board as she was absent for a considerable long period. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board submitted the certificate which is Annexure P-6. In the said certificate, it is stated that petitioner was examined by District Medical Board on.19.12.98. She was having a history of delivery L.S.C.S. In March, 1998 and complains of Numbness (Lt.) Half of Body, Non-infective. No neurological deficit. The petitioner was referred to Department of Neurology, Hamidia Hospital. Bhopal of expert advise regarding diagnosis. In the said certificate, it is stated that petitioner was examined by District Medical Board on.19.12.98. She was having a history of delivery L.S.C.S. In March, 1998 and complains of Numbness (Lt.) Half of Body, Non-infective. No neurological deficit. The petitioner was referred to Department of Neurology, Hamidia Hospital. Bhopal of expert advise regarding diagnosis. Dr. T.N. Dubey- M.D. D.M. (Neurology) has examined the petitioner and issued a letter on 64.1999 which is Annexure P/7 whereby it is stated that petitioner is suffering from recurrent 1.1.A. MCA and after examination the petitioner was advised for prolonged treatment, proper investigation and constant follow up. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid certificates was issued in favour of the petitioner which are Annexures P/6, P/7 and were submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, therefore, there was no material for the respondents to conclude that petitioner was found unfit by the Medical Board to perform her duties which has resulted into ultimate dismissal of the petitioner by the respondents. In this reference, it would be appropriate to refer that when the respondents by letter Annexure P/5 directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical and Health Officer then the respondents should also have enquired from the Chief Medical and Health Officer to furnish the information whether the petitioner has appeared or not but no efforts were made by the respondents to know as to whether the petitioner has appeared before the Medical Board or not. At the time when the petitioner preferred an appeal, nil such material was placed but the appellate authority came to the conclusion that no certificate by Medical Board or the certificate of petitioner's examination by the Specialist has been filed, therefore, it cannot be believed that petitioner was sick. 8. The reasons given by the appellate authority cannot be said to be a reasonable application of mind by the appellate authority. Once the certificates were submitted by the petitioner along with the appeal and the petitioner in compliance to the order passed by the respondents Annexure P/4 appeared before the Medical Board then the respondents should have made some enquiry from the Office of Chief Medical and Health Officer with reference to attendance to petitioner before Chief Medical Officer but no efforts ever was made. 9. 9. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order Annexure P/2 passed by the appellate authority dated 15.2.2006 and direct the said appellate authority to consider the question and also various documents submitted by the petitioner for her leave which are Annexure P/3 and also the certificates Annexures P/6 and P/7 and thereafter pass a speaking order on the basis of said documents within a period of three months from the date the petitioner furnishes certified copy of this order to the respondents. Petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent above.