Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.4697 of 2018
This the 24th day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
Yogesh Kumar, DCIO, Group „A‟
(Deputy Central Intelligence Officer)
Intelligence Bureau
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Late Shri K.S. Kane
R/o H.No.13/20, 3rd Floor (Backside)
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Suresh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Intelligence Bureau,
Intelligence Bureau Hqrs.
Ministry of Home Affairs,
35, S.P. Marg, New Delhi-110021.
3. The Addl. Director/ECO,
ntelligence Bureau Hqrs.
Ministry of Home Affairs,
35, S.P. Marg, New Delhi-110021.
4. The Joint Deputy Director/E
ntelligence Bureau Hqrs.
Ministry of Home Affairs,
35, S.P. Marg, New Delhi-110021.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Rajeev Kumar)
2
ORDER (Oral)
Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):
Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission
stage itself.
2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following
reliefs:-
“(a)
To quash and set aside the impugned Transfer
order dated 17.11.2016 and the Relieving Order
dated 18.11.2016, and direct the respondents to
continue the applicant as DCIO in Delhi.
(b)
To issue instructions to the respondents to
sanction leave for the period from 21.11.2016
onwards as per his applications dated 18.11.2016,
08.11.2017 and 6.11.2018
(c)
To allow the O.A. with costs.
(d)
Pass such other direction or directions order or
orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper to meet the ends of justice.”
3. This a case in which the applicant is seeking quashing
of his transfer order, which was issued to him on 17.11.2016
and consequent to which, he was also relieved vide order
dated 18.11.2016 and this OA has been filed on 21.12.2018.
4. The plea of the applicant in this OA is that the said
transfer order dated 17.11.2016 as well as relieving order
dated 18.11.2016 were delivered to him only in December
2018. He also pleaded in the OA that the same were supplied
to him after repeated requests vide letters dated 3.3.2018,
5.6.2018 and 6.11.2018.
3
5. However, it is pertinent to mention that applicant
himself stated in the OA that the respondents have issued a
Memorandum dated 13.7.2017, which is alleged to have been
received by him on 10.1.2018, for unauthorized absence.
Applicant further contents that the respondents have not
conveyed any refusal to grant leave with reference to his
application dated 17.11.2016 till he proceeded on leave.
6. From the aforesaid bare minimum facts of the case, it is
apparent that applicant was very much aware of the fact of
his transfer as he on the same very day, i.e., 17.11.2016
when the said transfer order was issued, submitted his leave
application and proceeded on leave as a matter of right. The
applicant has also annexed a letter dated 18.11.2016 written
by him to the Joint Director/E, SIB, Delhi, which reads as
under:-
“In anticipation of kind sanction of Joint Director,
SIB, Delhi, I do hereby submit my Departure Report
Today (November 18, 2016 A/N) to avail 351 days E.L.
& H.P.L. w.e.f. November 21,2016 to attend unavoidable
serious family problems at Home (Agra, Uttar Pradesh).”
7. From the aforesaid contents of the letter written by the
applicant, it is clear that applicant proceeded on leave
without availing any kind of sanction of Joint Director for
such a long period. Casual leave only can be availed off
without prior sanction. Earned Leave of 351 days as applied
for by the applicant of this OA must be sanctioned before the
4
same can be availed off. This conduct of the applicant shows
that he was very much aware of his transfer as well as the
relieving orders. It is settled legal position that leave cannot
be claimed as a matter of right by an employee and it is the
discre
