Back
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Sangeeta - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 7606 of 2012
Decided on: 25-03-2015
Compulsory Retirement - Disciplinary Action - [Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 19(1)(a), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 27] - The court discussed the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The court emphasized the importance of prior intimation and sanction for availing leave, the impact of unauthorized absence on the employer, and the employer's right to impose proportionate penalties for misconduct.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ASI Clerk in CISF, was imposed with compulsory retirement for unauthorized absence and misconduct. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and reinstatement, arguing that the penalty was disproportionate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a history of unauthorized absence and had not improved despite previous punishments. The penalty of compulsory retirement was deemed proportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: The proportionality of the penalty imposed, the petitioner's history of unauthorized absence, and the impact of the petitioner's actions on the employer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized absence and taking leave without prior sanction exhibited irresponsibility and lack of interest in work, constituting misconduct. The employer has the right to impose proportionate penalties for such misconduct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated December 01, 2011 whereby the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner against which the appeal preferred was dismissed and against which order the revision filed was dismissed on December 27, 2011, the writ petition has been filed praying that the orders be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service after imposing such penalty as may be found proportionate to the wrong committed by the petitioner. In other words, the proportionality of the penalty has been questioned.
2. Petitioner was enrolled as an ASI Clerk in CISF on September 07, 1990 and was promoted as a Sub-Inspector in September 2000. The petitioner claims of having rendered meritorious service and having earned 25 cash awards and 4 commendation certificates.
3. On May 13, 2011 a charge memo was served upon the petitioner alleging as under:-
Charge No. 1
Force No.903180012 Lady SI/Min.Sangeeta, deployed in CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi remained absent from her duty without leave between 25.10.2010 to 02.12.2010 for total 39 days without permission of the Competent Authority. The said act symbolize gross dereliction of duties and indiscipline and arbitrary behaviour. Hence the charge.
Charge No. 2
Force No.903180012 Lady SI/Min.Sangeeta, deployed in CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi remained absent from her duty without leave between 01.01.2011 to 05.01.2011 for total 05 days, between 11.01.2011 to 23.01.2011 for total 13 days, on 19.02.2011 for 01 day, between 28.02.2011 to 02.03.2011 for 03 days, between 28.03.2011 to 03.04.2011 for 07 days and on 06.04.2011 for 01 day without permission of the competent authority. Apart from above direction was given for report for duty on Saturday on 16.04.2011 (GH) and 17.04.2011 (Sunday) due to the visit of the Director General. But she did not report for duty on both days. Hence the charge.
Charge No. 3
Force No.903180012 Lady SI/Min.Sangeeta, deployed in CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi remained absent from her duty without leave from 18.04.2011 till date without permission of the competent authority. Hence the charge.
Charge No. 4
Force No.903180012 Lady SI/Min.Sangeeta, deployed in CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi reported late for duty in office on 20.10.2010 and remained absent from her duty without leave between 21.10.2010 to 22.10.2010 for total 02 days without permission of the competent authority and was taken on duty on 23.10.2010 despite coming late and was ordered to sign on the register on 23.10.2010 but she signed for 20.10.2010 to 22.10.2010 for three days thereby manipulated the records. Apart from the above she manipulated the attendance register on getting opportunity by iterating the same for the dates on January 2011, 01.01.2011, 03.01.2011 to 06.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 to 23.01.2011, 15.02.2011, 22.02.2011, 26.02.2011, 28.02.2011 and 01.04.2011 despite remaining absent from duty. Hence the charge.
Charge No. 5
Force No.903180012 Lady SI/Min.Sangeeta, deployed in CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi is habitual to remain absent from duty and is careless and irresponsible towards her duty. She failed to mend her attitude despite 07 punishment and 13 explanation, warning and memorandum issued by this office. The aforesaid reflects her gross dereliction towards duty, indiscipline and arbitrary attitude.”
4. Seven witnesses were examined by the department during enquiry and thirty five documents were proved. The seven witnesses are:-
(i)
No. 754480031 Insp/M B M Rao (Head Clerk)
PW-1
(ii)
No.842090054 SI/M B L Saw (IC/Accounts)
PW-2
(iii)
No.983440055 ASI/Clk Yashpal Gautam (Cashier)
PW-3
(iv)
No.984460010 ASI/Clk Piyush Tiwari IC/Discipline
PW-4
(v)
No.854330052 Insp/Min G.C. Pramanik
PW-5
(vi)
No.954670106 ASI/Clk Rajesh Babu Shankwar
PW-6
(vii)
No.083750029 Lady/SI/Exe Anita Kusum Dang
PW-7
5. The pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
