Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharda d/o Jayram Bhalerao, was appointed as a Lady Police Constable in the Maharashtra Police Force. She was terminated from service by an order dated 4th May 2009 issued by Respondent No.3, the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad, on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner contended that she was suffering from a disease and had submitted medical certificates to the authorities, but the disciplinary authority did not consider her medical grounds and terminated her without conducting a proper inquiry and without giving her an adequate opportunity of hearing. The respondents argued that the petitioner remained absent without leave and that the termination was justified. The court examined the facts and found that the disciplinary authority had not considered the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner and had not conducted a proper inquiry as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The court held that the termination order was illegal and set it aside. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of absence. The judgment was pronounced on 21st July 2016 by a division bench comprising Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Sangitrao S. Patil.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Unauthorized Absence - Article 311(2) of Constitution of India - Termination order set aside as disciplinary authority failed to consider petitioner's medical grounds and conducted inquiry without proper opportunity of hearing - Held that termination without considering medical certificate and without proper inquiry is illegal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner from service as Lady Police Constable on the ground of unauthorized absence was legal and valid, and whether the disciplinary authority conducted a proper inquiry and gave adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 4th May 2009 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of absence.
Law Points
- Termination without proper inquiry is illegal
- Disciplinary authority must consider medical grounds
- Opportunity of hearing mandatory before termination
- Article 311(2) protection to government servants
