AMRUTHA M GEORGE Vs. SPICES BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is an Assistant Director in the Spices Board is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting her application for leave not due in continuation of Child Care Leave and in proceeding with disciplinary action against her.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is on Ext.P1 memo of charge for unauthorised absence from 16.11.2017. The allegation against her is that she was not rejoining duty and was not submitting application in accordance with Rule 43 C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 ('CCS Leave Rules' for short). The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant her leave from 16.11.2017 to 205.2018 as per the provisions under Rule 31 GID r/w Rule 43C (6) of CCS( Leave) Rules.

(3.) The petitioner submitted application for child care leave under Rule 43-C for 180 days for the period from 8.7.2015 to 4.1.2016 on 30.6.2015. The respondent accorded sanction for CCL for 45 days as per order dated 4.8.2015 for the period from 9.7.2015 to 22.8.2015. After she submitted a reminder on 26.8.2015, the respondents issued order dated.21.9.2015 sanctioning CCL for another 45 days from 28.15 to 6.10.15. Again she submitted request on 10.2015 and the respondents issued order dated.8.10.15 sanctioning CCL from 7.10.15 to 20.11.15. She again submitted a request on 20.10.15 based on which CCL for the next 45 days for the period upto 4.1.2016 was sanctioned on 30.11.2015. On 31.12.15 the petitioner submitted another application for CCL for 180 days from 05.01.2016 to 007.2016. The respondents, as per orders dated 08.01.2016, 16.02016, 12.05.2016 and 30.12.2016 accorded sanction for CCL for 45 days each from 05.01.2016 to 18.02.2016, from 19.02.2016 to 04.2016 from 04.04.2016 to 18.05.2016 and thereafter from 19.05.2016 to 007.2016 each after a reminder from the petitioner in between. On 30.06.2016 the petitioner submitted another application for a further period of 180 days of CCL from 04.07.2016 to 30.12.2016. After a reminder dated 007.2016, CCL was sanctioned as per order dated 11.07.2016, 19.10.2016 and 30.12.2016 for 30 days each from 04.07.2016 to 02.08.2016 and from 008.2016 to 01.09.2016 and thereafter from 02.09.2016 to 30.12.2016 for a period of 120 days. On 24.12.2016 the petitioner had submitted application for earned leave and half pay leave for a period of 93 days from 31.12.16 to 02.04.2017. The respondents sanctioned leave as per order dated 201.2017, for a period of 37 days from 31.12.2016 to 05.02.2017. On 01.02.2017 the petitioner submitted a reminder and thereafter on 29.02017 CCL was sanctioned for 56 days from 06.02.2017 to 02.04.2017. Another application for half pay leave and earned leave was submitted on 27.02017 for 46 days from 004.2017 to 18.05.2017. After a reminder, the respondents issued order dated 18.05.2017 sanctioning the leave. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 12.05.2017 for leave for the next spell. That application was modified on 207.2017 requesting for CCL for 9 days from 19.05.2017 to 27.05.2017 and leave not due from 28.05.2017 to 15.11.2017. The 9 days' CCL was sanctioned from 19.05.2017 to 27.05.17, as per order dated.08.08.2017. After submitting a reminder on 01.09.2017, the petitioner submitted another application on 06.11.2017 for extension of leave not due for 93 days from 16.11.2017 to 16.02.2018. As per order dated 05.12.2017 the request for leave not due for 172 days was rejected and thereafter the petitioner again submitted representation dated 15.12.2017 and 08.01.2018. The respondent Board as per its order Ext.P7 dated 05.01.2018 directed the petitioner to join duty within 10 days or to apply for leave of the kind due and admissible under Rule 43 C(6) of CCS Leave Rules, 1972, failing which disciplinary action will be initiated. The petitioner was reminded of the consequences of the unauthorised absence and the liability to take action against the absentees. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued.