Delhi High Court quashes penalty imposed on woman officer for taking leave to care for her children

The Delhi High Court recently set aside the penalty imposed by Central government on a woman officer for remaining absent from duty without sanction [Ritu Ravi Prakash Vs Union of India].

The woman officer, serving as an Assistant Section Officer in Central Secretariat Service, had repeatedly applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) for the board exams of her minor daughters and their related needs but it was not sanctioned.

In 2014, she remained absent from the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) for about three months. The same was later treated ‘Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) on their own accord’.

A year later, she was charged for the unauthorized absence during 2013-2015. She was also accused of other misconduct. However, the Inquiry Officer in 2018 exonerated her.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and on advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for three years with further directions that she will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the penalty imposed on the officer shocked the conscience of the Court.

“The penalty imposed upon the petitioner, that is, 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. The 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. The punishment, therefore, shocks the conscience of this Court and fails the test of proportionality,” the Court said. 

It agreed with the petitioner counsel's submission that the period of absence having been regularized as EOL, could not have then been made a subject of departmental proceedings. 

CCS (Leave) Rules specifically provide that a woman government servant may be granted CCL for the purpose of rearing or caring for a minor child, the Court noted.

It rejected the Centre’s defence that there was shortage of workforce as record showed that that additional staff was available. It further observed that since CCL was granted to other woman officers, rejection of her request appeared to be arbitrary and lacking any rational basis.

The Court also observed that the officer’s legitimate request for leave was mechanically rejected contrary to the beneficial intent of CCL scheme for woman officers.

“The denial of CCL in such circumstances, despite repeated representations and the absence of a substantiated administrative necessity, cannot be sustained in law. The approach of the respondent, rather than reflecting a balanced consideration of the petitioner’s legitimate request, demonstrates mechanical rejection and a disregard to the beneficial intent underlying the CCL scheme,” the Court stated. 

The Court also noted that as per the rules, in case of difference of opinion between the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the officer should have been given an opportunity to be heard. However, the Disciplinary Authority conclusively held her to be guilty, overlooking all the documentary evidence, it found.

“Such pre-judgment renders the subsequent consideration of the petitioner’s representation an empty formality. The process, therefore, stands vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguard,” the Court said. 

The disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities and substantive infirmities, the Court ruled as it granted relief to the petitioner.

Advocates Rajesh Katyal and Seema Katyal appeared for the petitioner. 

Senior Panel Counsel Ranvir Singh with advocate Vikas Kumar Singh appeared for Union of India.

[Read Judgment]