SAGARIKA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 19.04.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in TA/051/00001/2016, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner against the punishment imposed upon her in a disciplinary proceeding, for her alleged unauthorised absence from duty, though was allowed by the Tribunal, setting aside the punishment imposed upon her, and she was also allowed her admissible leaves by the Tribunal for the period she was absent from the duty, but she is aggrieved by the fact that the following three reliefs were denied to the petitioner by the Tribunal, due to which, the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner:-

(3.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Staff Nurse in the Central Institute of Psychiatry (CIP) where she joined on 28.01.2011. She went on study leave for two years from 15.07.2009 till 14.07.2011, and she reported to work on 15.07.2011, when she was having pregnancy of 33 weeks. She was medically advised to proceed on maternity leave which she took from 19.07.2011 till 14.01.2012. During her maternity leave, she gave preterm birth to a child on 20.08.2011, and claiming that the child was under weight and was in constant need of care and medical attention, she applied for extension of her maternity leave for 90 days, initially on 10.01.2012, which was rejected by the respondent authorities, but in spite of rejection of her first application itself, she continued on leave giving further applications for extension of her leave from time to time, which were also rejected, asking her to resume duty. As a matter of fact she did not resume her duty and she continued in leave. She finally resumed her duty on 25.11.2013 and she was subjected to departmental proceeding on the ground of unauthorised absence, and there was also one another charge, alleging that she had applied for a post in Government of India, without proper permission. However, the fact remains that in the departmental proceeding this charge was not found to be proved against her. The other two articles of charges, on which, she was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer, may be summarised as follows:-