simply accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner for her absence, particularly, her health condition and the major surgery underwent by her. The petitioner was asked to submit her explanation on the findings in the memo dated 23.03.1999. The petitioner submitted her representation again on 16.04.1999, reiterating the above said facts. In these circumstances, the petitioner was given posting at the plain areas on 21.06.1999, and thereafter, she continued to serve in the plain area and while she was serving in the plain area, her services were terminated by the impugned Government Order in G.O.(D)No.433, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 27.03.2002. The impugned Government Order also failed to take into account the health condition of the petitioner and more particularly, the major surgery underwent by her and also the fact that she served in the Hill station for 8 years and that she sought for transfer to the plain area on 02.12.1994. According to her, no order was passed on her request seeking transfer to plain area and her request was not considered till 21.06.1999 and the petitioner was not posted in the plain area up to June 1999. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.03.2002, removing the service of the petitioner on the allegation that she was unauthorisedly absent from 24.04.1996, is arbitrary and illegal. However, the petitioner is also at fault for not sending periodically the Medical Certificates. It is also relevant to note that the allegations made by the petitioner in the Original Application are not denied, as no counter affidavit is filed and Ground 6 is extracted above is not controverted. Taking into account the entirety of the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner's removal is liable to be interfered with.
