UNION OF INDIA Vs. HEMANT KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 4327/2010 filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was allowed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition can be summarized as under: The respondent, vide application dated 3.3.2009, sought 30 days Earned Leave (E.L.) for the period from 16.4.2009 to 15.5.2009 to go to Australia to meet his son. Simultaneously, he made a request, in the prescribed proforma for permission to travel abroad. The E.L. was sanctioned by Chief Post Master General vide memo dated 5.3.2009. While granting E.L. for the period from 16.4.2009 to 15.5.2009, the respondent was also permitted to prefix 15.4.2009 and suffix 16.5.2009 and 17.5.2009. Subsequently, he was also granted Restricted Holidays for 13.4.2009 and 14.4.2009 on 12.3.2009. On 12.3.2009, Chief Post General Manager forwarded the application of the respondent, seeking permission/NOC to travel abroad to Postal Directorate. On that application, an endorsement was made by Director (Headquarter) at Kolkata on 8.4.2009 that no separate NOC was required to travel abroad. However, the Chief Post Master General made a note, on the same day, recording that NOC was required for the respondent to leave the country. Relying upon the Department of Personnel & Trainings instructions dated 1.09.2008, the respondent made a noting to this effect on that file and proceeded as per his programme. A memo dated 23.10.2009 was issued to the respondent proposing imposition of minor penalty upon him. He filed OA No. 3396/2009 challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal vide order dated 4.5.2010 directed the petitioners herein to decide the representation which the respondent might make against the charge memo. However, the petitioners vide order dated 26.11.2010 imposed minor penalty of withholding the one increment for a period of 02 years without cumulative effect upon the respondent. OA No. 4327/2010 was then filed by the respondent challenging the penalty imposed upon on him. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 29.9.2011 allowed the OA with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

(2.) THE first question which comes up for our consideration is as to whether the respondent, before proceeding on leave, was required to obtain a separate NOC to travel abroad, even after he had been granted leave for the purpose of travelling abroad.

(3.) ANOTHER important aspect of this case is that Chief Post Master General, who had sanctioned the leave, even while recording a note on 8.4.2009 that the respondent was required to obtain NOC, did not revoke the leave which he had granted to the respondent. We would like to note here that while sanctioning leave it was clearly stipulated in the order that it could be cancelled in the interest of service. Again, there is no explanation from the petitioners as to why the Chief Post Master General did not revoke the leave when he found that no clearance from the Directorate was forthcoming for grant of NOC to the respondent.