KUSUMA KUMARI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPOINTED as a constable with Central Industrial Security Force in the year 2000, the petitioner was attached with a Battalion and assigned duties at the Bangalore International Airport in the year 2008. On 22.10.2008, she was granted casual leave for a period of 14 days and was required to report for duty on 17.11.2008 after availing leave on non-working days prefixing and suffixing the leave period. On 17.11.2008 the petitioner admittedly arrived at the airport and marked her attendance in the General Diary kept at the control room, but did not report for duty.

(2.) WHAT happened on 17.11.2008 is an admitted fact with a minor variation in the rival versions. Admittedly, petitioner submitted a letter of resignation on said date, which was not accepted. Admittedly, having left the letter of resignation with the Commandant of the Battalion, petitioner left the airport and never returned. Admittedly, before she submitted her resignation, the petitioner demanded Child Care Leave for a period of 9 months and admittedly the Commandant of the Unit told the petitioner that due to shortage of human power he was unable to sanction leave immediately and asked her to avail the said leave in the month of January 2009. The petitioner claims that since Child Care Leave due to her was unjustifiably refused, her minor son, ailing from Bronchitis and recurring Pneumonia since birth required immediate care, she was compelled to submit the resignation and not report for work thereafter. The Department would urge that howsoever compelling may be the circumstances in which the petitioner found herself, she could not pre-judge her own cause. Child Care Leave could not be claimed as a matter of right at any given point of time; sanction of leave was subject to the administrative requirements i.e. exigencies of service. The department would highlight that petitioners husband was also employed as a Sub-Inspector with CISF and the two could manage their duties in a manner where, if indeed required, either parent could be with the child.

(3.) IN view of the continued absence of the petitioner, on 5.6.2009 a charge memo was issued to her alleging the following misdemeanour:-