YOGITA SWAROOP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third round of litigation by the Applicant against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing her from service. In the first round of litigation, finding that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon her was without considering some of the material facts, this Tribunal directed the Disciplinary Authority to review its order under Rule 29 -A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After review, the Disciplinary Authority again imposed the same penalty of dismissal from service upon her. However, this Tribunal again came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the aforesaid order in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as that the Disciplinary Authority did not supply the copy of the advice of the UPSC before the impugned order of dismissal was imposed upon her. Accordingly, the Respondents were directed to reinstate her in service but with the liberty to proceed with the disciplinary case from where the illegality has crept in. But again, vide order dated 02.07.2012, she was dismissed from service. Hence, this OA.

(2.) BRIEF facts: Applicant is an Indian Economic Service (IES for short) Officer. She was on deputation to the State Planning Institute, Yojna Bhawan, Lucknow, up to 09.06.2002. During her period of deputation, she made an application for leave on 11.06.2001 informing the Special Secretary (Planning) that she had to proceed to Delhi and then to Bombay for post operative checks and other investigations. She had also informed him that she was not in a position to attend office from that date and will apply for leave in the prescribed format when she resumes her duty. However, she did not report for duty thereafter. Therefore, he cadre controlling authority, namely, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (the First Respondent), proceeded against her under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rues, 1965 for unauthorized/willful absence from duty, vide Memorandum dated 13.09.2004. The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry was proposed to be held as set out in the Statement of Articles of Charges reads as under: - -

(3.) THEREAFTER , vide her letter dated 13.11.2004, she refuted the charges levelled against her and stated that she had applied for leave after duly informing the Special Secretary Planning, Yojna Bhawan, Lucknow as she was to proceed to Delhi and Bombay for post operative checks and other investigations. As regard the first Article of Charge that she did not report for duty from 11.06.2001, she submitted that she was on extraordinary leave from that date on medial grounds. She has also stated that after she was diagnosed with uterine and abdominal tuberculosis in January, 2002 she has been undergoing treatment for them. Later on, various other gynecological problems were also diagnosed for which she was undergoing treatment for a period close to one and a half years from Dr. Aniruddh Malpani and Dr. Kulsheshtra. During the said period, investigations, supporting examinations, laparoscopy, hysteroscopy etc. were performed on her. Subsequently, her case was transferred to Dr. Mangala Telang at Telang Clinic, New Delhi under whose treatment she was thereafter. She has also stated that she was under intense mental stress, due to the intermittent surgeries and was advised rest. Further, she has stated that the fact that she was undergoing treatment was intimated to the then Special Secretary, Sri Anoop Aggrawal in 2001 and again in 2002 and her leave application on medical grounds as recommended by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO for short) dated 02.11.2004 has also been received by Sri Amal Kumar Verma, Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. According to the aforesaid letter dated 02.11.2004, Sri Amal Kumar Verma informed Shri S.K. Tewari, Deputy Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, Government of India that the Applicant in her letter dated 05.10.2004 informed that she was willing to work in Planning Department, Government of U.P. on deputation basis. Therefore, it was recommended that her deputation period should be extended till December, 2005. Shri Amal Kumar Verma has also informed Shri S.K. Tewari that the Applicant got unhealthy from 11.06.2001 and she should be granted extraordinary leave. Accordingly, her request was placed before the Government of India to consider her case for extension of the deputation period and thereafter to take the decision on her request for medical leave can also be considered.