- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Lady Social Worker with the Social Welfare Department of the State of Punjab, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for quashing order dated 12.09.1994 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 1, treating the period of absence prior to dismissal (17.08.1993) as 'dies non' and thereby depriving her of the benefit of pay, pension, increment, leave and seniority and further directing the respondents to treat her on duty for the said period. The petitioner has since retired from service, during pendency of this petition.
(2.) The petitioner joined the Department in the year 1971. Due to her continuous absence w.e.f. 02.12.1983, she was served with chargesheet for remaining absent from duty and ultimately order dated 17.08.1993 (Annexure P-8) was passed by respondent No. 2, dismissing the petitioner from service. The contents of this order would reveal that vide letter dated 22.04.1987, the enquiry officer asked the petitioner to appear in the enquiry but she did not attend. On the basis of enquiry report the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 08.12.1987 as to why she be not dismissed from service. Taking into consideration her reply, the enquiry officer was directed to hold the enquiry afresh by affording one more opportunity to her. She, however, did not attend the enquiry despite being informed of the date in the enquiry. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 29.12.1988 of dismissal, was again issued to her. Instead of furnishing reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a civil suit, challenging the proposed action, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.08.1991 because by that time no punishment order had been passed by the Department. Ultimately the order dated 17.08.1993 (Annexure P-8) was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(3.) The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the Secretary Welfare Department and she was ordered to be reinstated in service. In the order dated 22.08.1994 (Annexure P-9), passed in appeal, it was noticed that the petitioner was not proceeded against as per the provisions of the Punishment Rules, and the circumstances for her absence which she narrated verbally were beyond her control.;