The need to consider surrounding circumstances and mitigating factors in assessing misconduct and the proportionality of penalties in employment disputes.

Deepa Sharma, J.

1. The writ petitioner has impugned the dismissal order dated 13.09.2012 and order dated 28.12.2012, rejecting her statutory appeal and, order dated 16.05.2013, dismissing her revision petition.

2. The petitioner joined the CISF in January, 2008 as Constable (GD). She was transferred to Delhi and was posted at Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC) with effect from 01.08.2011. She was, from time to time, applying for leave to attend to her minor daughter who was living in Bhilai.

3. The petitioner’s plea is that she had applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) in the month of September, 2011, but on being asked to apply for casual leave, she applied for that and leave was duly sanctioned for 15.10.2011 to 04.11.2011. Leave was sought to attend to her ailing minor daughter. She further applied for 26 days of leave, but was informed that she could only be given leave from 23.02.2012. She alleges that her efforts to meet the superior authorities failed and on 13.02.2012, she was informed that her leave would be sanctioned only with effect from 23.02.2012. On 18.02.2012, she was asked to collect the leave certificate after her duty hours, but on reaching the office of Coy Commandant she learnt that her leave was not sanctioned. She alleges then about her attempt to meet Coy Commander at the office of DIG, but without success. This caused her distress; she made the call to the Police Control Room, dialing 100. It is submitted that instead of addressing her grievance, a Memorandum of Charge dated 14.03.2012 was issued to her which she duly replied, denying all the allegations. She was subsequently transferred to Jaipur, where the enquiry was conducted.

4. She has further alleges that she had never created any nuisance since she had never threatened to commit suicide as was alleged against her. It is submitted that there is no evidence to prove that she had threatened to commit suicide or had created any nuisance. Even testimonies of Inspector Ishwar Singh and Constable Rajesh Kumar, who reached at the spot, clearly show that they found her sitting alone and weeping. None of them stated that she was creating any nuisance or threatening to commit suicide. It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence to prove the charge, she could not have been held guilty. The enquiry report which concludes otherwise is apparently vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

5. It is argued that attitude of the respondents had been vindictive which is clearly apparent from the fact that the penalty imposed upon her is grossly disproportionate. She was given a censure on 02.03.2010 for purchasing a Scooty without permission. It is submitted that when she was in Bhilai, one Assistant Commandant, Tara Chand was taking undue advantage of the fact that she was a young divorcee and wanted her to visit him at his residence and on her refusal to succumb to his advances, he started harassing her and implicating her in false cases. He got her implicated in a case of theft for which a penalty was imposed upon her on 19.03.2010. She thereafter filed a sexual harassment complaint against him and a four member-committee, enquired into her complaint but under the influence of Assistant Commandant Tara Chand, exonerated him and subsequently she was charge-sheeted for levelling false charges against Assistant Commandant Tara Chand and in that matter, by order dated 12.07.2011, the penalty of reduction of pay at two stages was imposed upon her which she challenged before the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition No.485/2012. It is argued that the penalty of removal is thus motivated by these facts. It is also contended that the petitioner was under tremendous mental stress at the relevant time on account of denial of leave which she needed urgently for her daughter who had suffered a head injury in an accident. The petitioner thus has prayed that the penalty imposed should be set aside.

6. The contention of the respondent is that the penalty was