SUNITA SUD Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Memorandum No. 4416 dated 28.05.2002, the applicant was charged with the misconduct of remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly w.e.f. 6.07.1998 till the date of issuance of the charge sheet. The Inquiring Authority found the charge as not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer and issued disagreement note dated 10.03.2011 to applicant. According to the disciplinary authority, the Inquiring Authority had not considered the following facts in true spirit: -

(2.) THE learned counsel for applicant heavily relied upon the report of enquiry officer and submitted that When for the period from 6.11.1998 to 30.11.1998, the applicant had been granted earned leave/medical leave/extra ordinary leave, she could not be treated on leave without permission during such period. For the absence of the applicant from 1.12.1998 onwards, no request of the applicant for leave had been rejected, thus in terms of Rule 7 of the CCS (Leave Rules), the leave should have been deemed sanctioned. Besides, the findings and views of Enquiry Officer, learned counsel relied upon the various letters written by the applicant to Deputy Director of Education informing him that though she visited the administration branch of PGI, Chandigarh and other Government hospitals suggested by the department for her medical examination, no medical examination was conducted by the said Institutes/Hospitals. She specifically mentioned about the Deen Dayal Upadhyayay Hospital, New Delhi and PGI, Chandigarh. The third submission put forth by the learned counsel was that the period of absence of applicant could not have been treated as "dies -non" without giving her an opportunity to make a representation in this regard. No other point/ground raised in the OA was pressed by the learned counsel.

(3.) WE heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record. In the year 1998, when the applicant was posted as TGT (English) in Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Sector -V, Ambedkar Nagar, the Principal vide his letter ref. no NIL dated 26.11.1998 brought out that she was on leave w.e.f 6.7.98 to 30.11.98 i.e. on earned leave between 6.7.98 to 31.7.98, earned leave on medical ground w.e.f. 1.08.98 to 11.08.98 and EOL on medical grounds w.e.f. 12.8.98 to 30.11.98. Thus, the School authorities were required to forward all leave applications of the applicant and the Principal vide his letter dated 11.12.1998 forwarded the same. In the circumstances a Memorandum no 8688 dated 29.01.1999 was issued to applicant directing her to submit the medical certificate from a Government Hospital in the prescribed form. However, she gave a reply dated 1.03.1999 that she had been undergoing treatment at Himachal Nursing home since July 1998 and kept on submitting applications for extension of leave on medical ground. She was repeatedly advised by the respondents to get her medical examination conducted by Medical examination Board of PGI, Hospital Chandigarh or General Hospital Sector 16, Chandigarh or L.N. Hospital, Ansari Road or Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital, New Delhi and simultaneously, the intimations were also sent to the concerned authorities in the Hospital to do the needful. However, instead of subjecting herself to medical examination and allow the concerned board to submit a report regarding her health, the applicant kept on avoiding the same and making representation to the respondents taking the stand that the Institutes/Hospitals were not making any arrangement for her medical examination. Surprisingly, when the applicant could not succeed in getting herself medically examined regarding state of her health, she could conveniently procure the fitness certificate from PGI hospital, Chandigarh in the year 2001 to report for duty for a moment only. It is also quite surprising that when the applicant was posted in GGSSS, Sector 5, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi she availed treatment at Saket Institute of Orthopaedic Rehabilitation, Panchkula (Haryana), PGI Hospital, Chandigarh and General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. There is no explanation brought by the applicant to the fore that how instead of taking treatment in Delhi, the applicant had to avail the same at Chandigarh. Further, when for most of the period of absence i.e. from 6.7.98 to 3.3.2005, the applicant kept on applying for leave on medical ground, on 23.02.1999, she made an application to Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for posting her on deputation to Haryana Government. In this regard, the applicant has herself placed a memorandum No. 1735 dated 11.05.1999 on record which reads as under: -