Allahabad HC Pulls Up UP Govt For Terminating Woman From Services Sans Inquiry After Keeping Her Resignation Pending For 2 Yrs

The Allahabad High Court recently pulled up the Uttar Pradesh for initiating a departmental inquiry and thereafter terminating the service of a woman doctor 2 years after she sent her resignation.

Quashing the termination order passed against the woman and noting that the petitioner/woman was harassed, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary opined that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner, a doctor by qualification, was working as a lecturer at a government hospital and she took child care leave from Jan 23, 2016, to July 20, 2016, i.e. for a period of 180 days. After the child care leave, she intended to join but due to illness of the child was unable to resume her duties.

On July 19, 2016, she again requested for an extension of child care leave for another period of six months, to this, she was informed that her child care leave cannot be sanctioned for more than 180 days.

Since the petitioner was unable to join as the child was still requiring continuous care, she resigned in May 2018. Till the date of resignation, neither any departmental proceeding against the petitioner were initiated nor she was punished by any order.

Further, when no decision on the resignation letter was taken by the concerned authority, the petitioner, on February 25, 2019, again wrote a letter to the principal for grant of leave without pay, however, soon thereafter, an inquiry officer was nominated to hold a preliminary inquiry with regard to absence from duty of the petitioner.

Further, without fixing any date, time, and place in the inquiry and in fact without conducting any type of inquiry and without taking any decision upon the resignation of the petitioner, the State Government passed an order on Jan 6, 2021, terminating her services. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the same.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner's resignation was kept pending for as good as two years, and thereafter a termination order was passed against her. Besides this, the Court also termed the entire inquiry as illegal, while noting that no date, time, and the place was fixed in the inquiry and no evidence was submitted to prove the charge.

Against this backdrop, calling the conduct of the respondents as arbitrary and underscoring that it denied a fair play to a working woman, the Court observed thus:

"This Court fails to understand as to what purpose is achieved by the respondents by keeping the petitioner in service from 01.05.2018 i.e. from the date of resignation till 06.01.2021 i.e. the date on which she was terminated. During the said period, they could not appoint any other person in place of petitioner, therefore, work of the college continued to suffer and the public at large was in no manner benefited. The entire issue could have been best served by accepting her resignation. The petitioner had a right to resign on 01.05.2018 and her resignation had to be accepted as till that date neither any departmental inquiry was initiated against her nor there was any other reason available to the respondents for not accepting the resignation. Even her immediate superior administrative authority, i.e., the principal of the college, had recommended for acceptance of her resignation without any objection."

In view of this, the Court held that the respondents were bound to accept the resignation of the petitioner and that, there was no necessity to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner and therefore, the Court quashed the termination order.

Further, the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as having resigned from her post w.e.f. May 1, 2018, and directed them to grant her benefit which she is entitled to by treating her to be in service till that day.

Case Title - Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical Educat. And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 134

Click Here To Read/Download Order