OA No. 4413/2010. Case: Anu Gupta Vs National Capital Territory of Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 4413/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ashok Sharma and Anurag Rawat, Advocates and For Respondents: Vijay Pandita, Advocate |
| Judges | V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) and V.N. Gaur, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
V.N. Gaur, Member (A), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The present OA has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the respondents imposing the penalty of removal from service on the applicant.
-
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as TGT (English) under respondent no. 2 when on 11.07.2006 she applied for Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) with effect from 01.08.2006 to 31.03.2008 in order to accompany her husband who had been transferred to Guwahati on promotion in Airport Authority of India. It was also stated that she would not be able to stay alone due to health problems and the responsibility to look after children by herself at Delhi. On 21.07.2006 she submitted a revised application for EOL from 16.08.2006 to 31.03.2007. Before the respondents took a decision on that application the applicant applied for Earned Leave w.e.f. 26.07.2006 to 05.08.2006 and proceeded to Guwahati with permission to leave station. The applicant claims that she could not join duty after the expiry of sanctioned leave on 05.08.2006 and submitted request to extend her leave by two more weeks w.e.f. 07.08.2006. In the meantime the respondents had rejected the EOL application dated 21.07.2006. The Head of the School (HOS) issued memos to the applicant to resume duty at the earliest. However, the applicant claims that these memos were not received by her. The applicant extended her leave further for 2 weeks w.e.f. 19.08.2006 enclosing medical certificate from the attending Doctor but she was asked to appear before a Medical Board. The applicant submitted another medical certificate on 03.10.2006 along with a request for extension of leave for another two weeks but the same was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the medical certificate was not from the authorized medical board but from a Primary Health Centre. The applicant continued to submit medical certificates for the period ranging from two weeks to one month from time to time with the last such request sent on 02.01.2007. The respondents decided to take disciplinary action against the applicant for unauthorized and willful absence. A show cause notice was issued on 3.10.2006 and after considering her reply, the competent authority ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant vide order dated 21.01.2007. Though the applicant replied to the charge memo served on 12.03.2007 she did not participate in the inquiry...
To continue reading
Request your trial