Delhi High Court orders Centre to restore woman officer’s pay, service benefits after she faces action over child care leaves

It noted while it is trite that leaves, including CCL under Rule 7 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is “equally well settled that the power to sanction or decline such leave must be exercised reasonably”, with due regard to the object and purpose behind the introduction of such benefits.

The woman’s plea was against a December 11, 2015 office memorandum (framing articles of charge against her); the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority on September 23, 2019, and a September 30, 2019 office order, fixing the basic pay of the petitioner in accordance with the said order.

She had previously moved against the disciplinary action against her before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which dismissed her plea on June 29, 2021.

Here are key findings and directions of the bench in favour of the woman.

• Finding that the work of the petitioner could have been managed by existing staff or short-term arrangements, was not effectively controverted by the respondent.
• Denial of CCL in such circumstances, despite repeated representations and the absence of a substantiated administrative necessity, cannot be sustained in law.
• Penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for three years, with denial of increments and consequential effect on future progression, is manifestly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
• Allegations do not involve moral turpitude, corruption, financial irregularity, or any act prejudicial to the integrity of service. They stem entirely from the petitioner’s effort to avail CCL for her minor daughters.
• Punishment shocks our conscience and fails the test of proportionality as reiterated in Amandeep Kaur v. Union of India & Ors (punishment warrants interference on the ground of proportionality).
• Merit in submission that the period of absence between March 11, 2014 and August 8, 2014 having been regularised as extra ordinary leaves, could not have then been made a subject of departmental proceedings.
• Centre has placed reliance on the plea of staff shortage, however, no contemporaneous record or administrative assessment has been produced to substantiate such claim.
• Record reflects petitioner’s section had additional staff available at the relevant time and that similar leave requests by other employees, had been granted during the same period.
• The distinction drawn in the petitioner’s case appears to be arbitrary and lacking rational basis.
• Centre directed to restore the petitioner’s pay and consequential service benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

Arguments and background

The woman, a mother of two daughters, applied for CCL on several occasions for their examinations and related needs. The leave, however, was not sanctioned on the occasions and the subsequent period of her absence from duty became the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner’s advocate, Rajesh Katyal, argued that the penalty imposed on the officer was grossly disproportionate, particularly when the charge concerned only to absence on account of denial of CCL, and not to any act of moral turpitude, corruption, or financial impropriety. He further argued that her client’s disciplinary proceedings were barred by the principle of double jeopardy.

However, opposing the plea, the state, represented by advocate Vikas Kumar Singh, stated the decision to decline the officer’s CCL applications justified arguing that in the absence of sufficient staff, it was administratively impracticable to relieve her for such an extended period.

Concerning the officer’s plea pointing to disciplinary proceedings being barred by the principle of double jeopardy, the state argued that such a plea was untenable pointing that two actions operated in distinct spheres, one administrative and the other disciplinary, and were not mutually exclusive.

Singh mentioned the penalty was proportionate and justified, considering the officer’s repeated acts of indiscipline and unauthorised absence.