26.01.1997. Again she preferred leave application for 12 days from 27.01.97 to 07.02.97 and reported on 10.02.97 and worked upto 12.03.97. Further, when she was specifically asked to appear before DM & HO on 21.07.97 and 08.08.97, she failed to appear before them. All these goes to show that her claim is not genuine. As such, it cannot be said that her applications for leave are genuine. Though she joined duty for short spells, she never appeared before DM & HO. The Enquiry Officer has clearly considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that charges framed against her are proved. As far as letter dated 29.11.1972 is concerned, it is only stated in the commentary of the book. More so, these are given as guidelines and that cannot curtail the powers of the authorities conferred under Rule 11 and 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. For short spells of unauthorised absence, removal from service may be shockingly disproportionate as held in Raghubir Singh’s Case (supra 2) , but in this case, petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 1996 to 1998, though she attended for short spells, but even she failed to attend duty after her suspension was revoked on 09.01.2001. With regard to the penalties imposed on other officers as contended in the writ affidavit, minor punishments were imposed and the same is explained in the counter affidavit. In the present case, the petitioner was given opportunity to join duty without imposing penalty, but petitioner failed to avail the same. No doubt counter cannot supplement the reasons in the impugned order. In the present case, on her own making she failed to join duty till 16.03.2001 even after suspension was revoked on 09.01.2001 and no valid reasons were also given for her absence except stating that she want posting at a place near, where her husband is working. In Departmental enquiry strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.
