Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who serving as Assistant Professor in Department of Gynaecology in Medical College and Associated groups of Hospitals was served with a charge sheet, copy of which is placed on record as Annex.1 alongwith the statement of allegations. The allegation against the petitioner was that she remained absent from duty from 27.8.89 to 23.11.89 from 26.11.89 to 25.3.90 and from 30.3.90 to 17.7.90. The second part of the charge sheet was that she wilfully disobeyed the orders and directions. The petitioner submitted brief reply to the allegations, but ultimately detailed reply was submitted, copy of this reply is [Annex.6] placed on record. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the allegations of wilful absent from duty for the period commencing from 27.8.89 to 23.11.89, is not proved against the petitioner. For absence from duty from 26.11.89 to 25.3.90, the Inquiry Officer held that charge stands partially proved, but for the period only commencing from 25.11.89 to 3.12.89, which is period of only 8 days. For third part of the charge for absent from duty commencing from 30.3.90 to 17.7.90, the Inquiry Officer found this charge also proved partially to the extent of absence from duty from 29.3.90 to 14.4.90, period of 17 days only. It appears from the inquiry report that though the allegations of charge of absent from the duty for various periods were bifurcated in three parts, but for other charge i.e. disobedience of the orders and directions by the petitioner, no separate heading was given in the inquiry report. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is also to the extent of holding petitioner guilty of absenting herself from the duty without obtaining leave on two occasions. It is also held that there appears to be no specific finding in the Inquiry report with respect to any disobedience of the order and directions of any higher authority.
(3.) After receipt of the Inquiry Report by the Disciplinary Authority issued notice dated 23.7.94 to the petitioner copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 7 calling upon the petitioner to submit any representation, if she wishes, within a period of 15 days and in case of failure of submitting any representation by her, the matter will be proceeded further. In reply to the above notice dated 23.7.94 the petitioner submitted representation [Annex.8]. It appears that after considering the inquiry report and the representation of the petitioner the impugned order dated 31.1.95 [Annex.9] was passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled in the charge sheet [Annex.1]. [Though the Inquiry Officer did not record finding against the petitioner for all the charges in full]. By this order, the petitioner was found guilty for remaining absent from duty from 27.8.89 to 23.11.89, 26.11.89 to 25.3.90 and from 30.3.90 to 17.7.90 and was punished with stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effects. This order dated 31.1.95 [Annex.9] is under challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.;