9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued and even to this charge sheet the respondent remained ignorant. 3. Lastly on 9th July 2003 the petitioner asked the respondent to remain present as the post is required to be kept vacant. But the respondent ignored this notice also. Ultimately the service of the respondent came to be terminated under section 24 of the Primary Education Act as well as Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1997 on 15th April 2004. 4. The respondent kept quiet till the year 2007 and thereafter filed Case No. 253/2007 before the Court of Commissioner of disabled persons contending that she was suffering from mental disease and she should be reinstated in service and she should be given all the benefits under section 47(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent from service. According to him the respondent was suffering from mental shock and therefore she could not attend duty and therefore learned Commissioner has rightly passed the order. 10.As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, certain aspects are not disputed. The respondent was appointed with effect from 30.7.1990. From 26.9.1990 to 24.4.2004 she remained absent from duty. A show-cause notice was issued on 31.12.1999 to which the respondent has not replied. 11.On 20.8.2002 a chargesheet has been issued to which also she has not replied. The respondent was asked to produce certificate of Civil Surgeon, which was also not produced by the respondent. 12.Again another notice was issued to the respondent on 9.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility during his service. 14. In the present case, the respondent has remained on long leave and she has not responded to any of the communications by the petitioner. Her services were terminated in the year 2004 on the ground of absenteeism. Though the respondent was asked to produce certificate she has failed to comply with the same. 15. In short, after 2004 she was not in service and therefore, the respondent cannot rely upon the provisions of said section which clearly states that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service . I am therefore of the view that the said section would be of no help to the respondent. Even otherwise, she had served for only 2 months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
