An employee has no legal right to insist on being posted at any particular place, and disciplinary actions must be taken in the best interest of the administration.

JUDGMENT :

Talwant Singh, J.

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order and judgment dated 3rd January, 2018 in OA No.2053/2016 and order dated 9th February, 2018 in RA No.18/2018 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and has further prayed for quashing and setting aside orders dated 4th May, 2016 and 27th January, 2016 as well as other proceedings. In brief, the case of the Petitioner is that she joined All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in 2002 as Sister Grade-I. On 30th September, 2015 she was asked to handover the charge to another nurse and she was transferred to DNS. She was earlier working in D2 ward. On 5th October, 2015 she requested the acting Medical Superintendent for some fixed time duty so that she can take care of her autistic child also. She further wrote a letter dated 2nd November, 2015 requesting to put her back in lithotripsy or OPD duty.

2. On 14th November, 2015 the Petitioner was served with a memo in which it is stated that she had shown reluctance and disinterest in joining the transferred place of work. She replied to the said memo on 26th November, 2015. A warning letter dated 11th December, 2015 was issued to her stating that in future, she should not make baseless allegations against the seniors. Another memo was issued to her on 27th January, 2016 proposing to take action against her under Rule 16 of CCS Rules. The same was replied on 27th January, 2016. She again wrote a letter on 18th March, 2016 to the Medical Superintendent requesting for a light duty in view of the medical condition of her autistic child. In February/March, 2016 the Petitioner approached National Human Rights Commission, Court of Chief Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi Commission for Women and Scheduled Caste Commission also and appraised them about the facts of her case. On 4th May, 2016 the Respondents instituted an enquiry against her under Rule 14 of CCS Rules, 1965.

3. The Petitioner preferred an OA No.2053/2016 before CAT which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3rd January, 2018 and the review petition filed against the same has been dismissed on 9th February, 2018. The Petitioner has made the following prayers:

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:

(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders and judgment dated 03.01.2018 in OA No.2053/2016 and order dated 09.02.2018 in RA No.18/2018.

(b) Quash and set aside the order dated 04.05.2016, dated 27.01.2016 and other proceedings.

(c) Pass any such order as this Hon’ble court may deems and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justices.”

4. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.2-5 mentioning therein that the only legal contention raised by the Petitioner is that two simultaneous proceedings under Rule 15 and 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules are being conducted; the departmental enquiry is mala fide and is being conducted to harass the Petitioner but the Petitioner had not raised these contentions before the CAT and it is established principle of law that the contentions not raised before the learned Tribunal cannot be raised before this Court for the first time. It has been further submitted that vide order dated 31st July, 2018 this Court had directed the Respondents counsel to seek instructions as to whether simultaneous proceedings against the Petitioner are being undertaken. The Respondents informed their counsel on 26th October, 2018 that while issuing the order dated 4th May, 2016 with regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, it was inadvertently mentioned that an enquiry under 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules is being held against the Petitioner. However, order dated 31st May, 2017 was issued under Rule 16 appointing another Presenting Officer, as the earlier Presenting Officer had been repatriated to her parent cadre. So, at present, the order dated 31st March, 2017 stand and the enquiry against the Petitioner is only co