- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 15 February 2016
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Deepa Sharma
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 6792/2015
Judgment
DEEPA SHARMA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
OCTOBER 14, 2015 rb/bg
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment reserved on: 09.09.2015 % Judgment decided on: 14.10.2015 AMANDEEP KAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ayush Negi with Mr.Rajeev Misra and Mr.Himanshu Tyagi, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajan Khosla, Advocate with Mr.Reshesh Mani Tripathi, Govt.Pleader on behalf of R-1&2/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGMENT) 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 Page 2 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 Page 3 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 Page 4 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 appea
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.