AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2014, whereby the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of her basic in the pay band of Rs.5200- 20200+Grade Pay Rs.2400 from Rs.7830/- +Rs.2000 (Grade Pay) to Rs.6460+2000 (Grade Pay) for a period of three years with a direction that the petitioner shall not earn any increments of pay during the said period and that the said reduction shall have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30.12.2014 whereby the intervening period with effect from 03.08.2013 to 02.09.2014 was ordered to be treated as "dies-non" for all purposes with denial of any allowance for the said period.

(2.) A brief narration of facts shows that the petitioner joined the CISF on 02.09.2006 and proceeded on maternity leave of 180 days with effect from 25.06.2012. She was blessed with a girl child on 15.08.2012. Before the expiry of the maternity leave, she applied for 60 days of Child Care Leave (CCL) with effect from 22.12.2012, but was sanctioned 30 days of CCL. She, on expiry of CCL, rejoined her duties on 21.01.2013. She also applied for additional CCL with effect from 22.01.2013 vide her application dated 16.01.2013, but the same was rejected in the first instance. On her approaching the higher officials, she was sanctioned 30 days of leave with effect from 22.01.2013. She returned to her parental home where the child had developed pneumonia and was treated at Community Health Centre (Sammudaik Swasthya Kendra), Baraut, Baghpat, U.P. Finding no improvement in the condition of the child, the petitioner returned to Hyderabad on 12.02.2013 and the treatment of the child started at Apollo Hospital (empanelled). The treating doctor diagnosed the child of five months age to be suffering from allergic bronchitis recurrent tract infection and advised proper and constant supervision by the mother. On expiry of 30 days CCL, she was to rejoin on 21.02.2013, however, she applied for extension of CCL by 5 months with effect from 21.02.2013. Her application was returned to her on 20.02.2013 with the remark that the medical certificate was not attached to the application. She resubmitted the application on 21.02.2013. Although she was required to join duties on 21.02.2013, she did not do so and a reminder call up Notice-I dated 28.02.2013 was sent to her directing her to rejoin the duties immediately or face Departmental Enquiry. The said notice was duly replied and again a request was made to sanction the CCL on the grounds that the child was unwell and there was no one at home to take care of the child. Another call up Notice-II and later a Notice-III were sent to her on 14.03.2013 and 20.03.2013 respectively. The petitioner replied, but did not re-join the duties. Since petitioner did not re-join the duties, a Memorandum of Charge dated 11.04.2013 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules 2001 alleging that she had continued to overstay her sanctioned leave from 21.02.2013 and had exhibited an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline was served upon her. A Departmental Enquiry was ordered on 26.04.2013. The petitioner duly participated in the enquiry and report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority on 10.07.2013. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 03.08.2013 ordered that the petitioner be removed from service on account of proven misconduct. The petitioner's appeal dated 29.08.2013 was rejected. She preferred a Revision and the Revisional Authority by order dated 01.08.2014 converted the penalty of "removal from service" to "reduction of pay to the minimum of her basic in the pay bad of Rs.5200- 20200+Grade Pay Rs.2400 from Rs.7830/- +Rs.2000 (Grade Pay) to Rs.6460+2000 (Grade Pay) for a period of three years with direction that no increments shall be earned by her during that period and that it will have effect of postponing her future increments of pay".

(3.) What emerges is that the petitioner had applied for sanction of the CCL with effect from 21.02.2013 but the same was not sanctioned to her. Her repeated submissions of the application/request for sanction for further period were not acceded to; still she did not rejoin her duties on expiry of the period of sanctioned leave. She did not re-join her duties even after she was served with three call-up notices, asking her to rejoin her duties and simultaneously informing her that her application for CCL was rejected. The fact, therefore, is that the petitioner did continue to remain absent from duty without any sanctioned leave and this proves the misconduct.