S. C. SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of a recalcitrant government servant who thinks that leave ought to be granted to him as of right, because the Government, in its magnanimity, has permitted government servants to accumulate unduly large amount of leave under the Rules.

(2.) The appellant was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Intelligence Bureau. Between 14.02.1989 to 16.02.1989, he remained absent and claimed that he had telephonically conveyed information to the Section Officer about his inability to attend work on account of illness. By a memorandum dated 16.02.1989/17.02.1989 the appellant was considered as being unauthorisedly absent from duty and was extended the courtesy of the said memorandum served by home delivery. As a consequence, the appellant was issued a warning on 2.03.1989 warning him to abstain from taking leave frequently and advising him that he should get over the habit of taking leave frequently in future because of which office work suffered. He was also warned that otherwise disciplinary action would be taken. As expected, the appellant made a representation against the said warning but his representation came to be ignored.

(3.) On 6.07.1989 the appellant was transferred by an order from the headquarters at New Delhi to Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Tezpur. A relieving order was passed on the same day. According to the respondents, the appellant was relieved on the said day. According to the appellant, however, the relieving order was served on him on 28.07.1989. Although, the relieving order was treated as being retrospectively effective from 6.07.1989, nothing really turns on this. The appellant attended work on 7.07.1989 and 8.07.1989 and 9.07.1989 were Saturday and Sunday. He applied for earned leave for 10.07.1989 and 11.07.1989. It is the case of the appellant that he fell ill on 11.07.1989 as a result of which he could not join the office at Tezpur to which he was transferred. He went on submitting leave applications supported by medical certificates from doctors who were not authorised under the applicable disciplinary rules. For the entire period from 11.07.1989 to 20.11.1990, the appellant remained absent and his only reply was that he was sick. On 23.11.1990, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet alleging unauthorised absence from duty against him for the entire period. He replied to the said charge-sheet and his only defence was that he was sick and, therefore, he could not report for duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar where he had been subsequently transferred.