Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent board at Villupuram, the project in which the petitioner was working was closed. The petitioner and other officers who were working in the said Project were redeployed to various offices of the respondent board through proceedings No.11511/WCE3/2011 dated 08.02.2012. Through the said order of redeployment, the post of Assistant Accounts Officer held by the petitioner, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was redeployed to the Special RWS Division, Tindivanam as there was closure of office and redeployed to proposed Major Project Division II, Tirupathur. The petitioner was relieved through proceedings No.999-1/EA/2012 dated 13.02.2012, requiring the petitioner to join duty after obtaining further reposting orders from the Managing Director of the respondents board. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the respondent board stating that she has met the Managing Director of the respondents board requesting for reposting order, but she was not issued with any reposting orders as on 13.07.2012 and also made a request for sanction of EL from 13.02.2012 to 24.07.2012. Subsequently, she made an application for medical leave with medical certificate from 25.07.2012 to 01.11.2012. It was at that stage, the first respondent issued another proceedings dated 12.11.2012 transferring the petitioner to Maintenance Division, Pudukkottai. However, the petitioner failed to report to duty at the new place of posting also. Under the said circumstances, the respondents board issued a charge memo dated 19.11.2012 with three charges. However, the said charge memo was subsequently modified by another charge memo dated 08.08.2013 with two charges. The said charges framed against the petitioner are as under:-

6. There is no dispute on factual aspects. The petitioner was relieved from Villupuram on 13.02.2012 requiring her to approach the Managing Director of the respondents board and to seek appropriate posting orders.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had reported before the Managing Director of the respondents board after 13.02.2012 expect a representation dated 13.07.2012 addressed to the Finance Officer of the respondent board and there was a reference in the said representation that the petitioner has approached the Managing Director of the respondents board. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis That representation addressed to the Finance Officer is after a lapse of five months since the petitioner was relieved from service on 13.02.2012. Even in the said representation also, the petitioner though stated that she reported before the Managing Director and requested for reposting orders, but the petitioner made a request for sanction on EL from 13.02.2012 to 24.07.2012. If no posting order was issued inspite of petitioner approaching Managing Director, the question of the petitioner applying for sanction of EL from 13.02.2012 does not arise. If for any reason, no reposting orders are issued by the Managing Director, there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek sanction of EL with effect from 13.02.2012. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has reported before the Managing Director after 13.02.2012 cannot be accepted. However, subsequently when re- transferring order was issued through proceedings dated 12.11.2012 transferring the petitioner to Maintenance Division, Pudukottai also, the petitioner had not reported the duty at the new place of posting.