Delhi District Court
Departmental Enquiry vs . Sh. Parmod, Safai Karamchari. on 29 February, 2012
DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K.
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER SH. RAVINDER SINGH,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY.: 01/2010
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0304722010
Departmental Enquiry vs. Sh. Parmod, Safai Karamchari.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.02.2011
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 27.02.2012
DATE OF DECISION: 29.02.2012
1.An inquiry was endorsed to me by the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge (Central) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Rules 1965 against Sh. Parmod (hereinafter will be referred as delinquent) vide order dated 16.09.2010.
2. As per the statement of imputation, the delinquent official was charged with the unauthorized absence from duty on 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 31.10.2009 and 27.11.2009 without any intimation or prior leave permission to the concerned office. In this regard a memo dated 20.01.2010 was issued to the delinquent for seeking explanation for his unauthorized absence for the DE NO.01/2010 Page1/8 DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. above said dates. The delinquent gave the leave application along with reply to the memo dated 20.01.2010. In his reply, delinquent stated that his mother was ill during the period 2009 and he admitted his mistake. It is also alleged that the delinquent was previously warned vide order dated 09.10.2009 and 31.08.2009 for unauthorized absent from duty. Further he was also warned to be careful in future vide order dated 01.08.2008 as he did not clean the area properly in Karkardooma Courts. So this culminated in the proceedings for inquiry before me.
3. The delinquent appeared before me and Sh. Ashok Chandra Dhyani was appointed as Defence Assistance in this case. Delinquent filed reply to the article of charges wherein he stated that he was uneducated and not conversant with the leave rules of department and he was under
impression that his EL automatically would be deducted from his leave account. He further stated that lapse in not sending the EL in time had occurred inadvertently and due to lack of knowledge.
4. To prove the charges leveled against the delinquent, department examined two witnesses i.e. SW1 Sh. Nand Kishore, Incharge of Caretaking Branch and SW2 Ms. Babbal Mehra, LDC from ACJ(Central) Office.
DE NO.01/2010 Page2/8
DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K.
5. SW1 deposed that on 18.01.2010, he was posted in Karkardooma Court as Incharge Caretaking Branch and he made absentee report of delinquent Parmod, Safai Karamchari which is Ex.SW1/1 and he forwarded the same to Administrative Civil Judge, Central Tis Hazari Courts. He further deposed that he prepared the absentee report of the delinquent on the basis of attendance register wherein delinquent had been marked absent for 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009 to 31.10.2009 and 27.11.2009, copies of attendance register are collectively Ex.SW1/2.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. Ashok Chander Dhyani, Defence Assistance at length. SW1 admitted that delinquent used to join after availing the leaves. He further admitted that delinquent after joining the duty, was issued verbal direction to submit his leaves. SW1 admitted that delinquent submitted his reply on 25.01.2010 in response to memo no.3373/A522/ABS/ACJ/10 dated 20.01.2010 and he has forwarded the same. The copy of reply is Ex.SW1/D1.
6. SW2 deposed that on 27.07.2010, she submitted a report regarding casual leave of delinquent dated 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009 to 31.10.2009 and 27.11.2009 wherein she stated that the official has not submitted his casual leave application for the same, her report is Ex.SW2/1.
DE NO.01/2010 Page3/8
DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. In cross examination, she deposed that her office is maintaining leave record in Tis Hazari. She also admitted that leave along with application Ex.SW1/D1 was sent to the office of Ld. ACJ, Tis Hazari Courts on 25.01.2010 but she is not aware what happened to those leaves. SW2 admitted that no absentee report/ record was submitted along with statement Ex.SW2/1.
7. Thereafter the evidence of department was closed and delinquent was provided an opportunity to bring his evidence. The delinquent produced himself as defence witness and he deposed that he is working as Safai Karamchari in GroupD since 1999. His mother is a widow and suffering from various ailments of the age. His real brother Parvinder was mentally sick and taking treatment from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Science (IHBAS) during 2009. Copy of the same is Ex.DW1/A. He further deposed that he had to take leave very frequently so that he could look after his family. He further deposed that after expiry of his casual leave, he enquired from other colleagues who informed that after the expiry of casual leaves, the department will automatically deduct earned leaves. He also deposed that a memo no.3373/A522/ABS/ACJ/10 issued to him then he came to know that EL are not directly deducted after the expiry of casual leave but EL Form is required to be submitted by the employee. So, DE NO.01/2010 Page4/8 DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. he submitted his leave application along with memo of reply. He further deposed that the lapse in not sending leaves immediately had occurred due to lack of education, knowledge and peculiar family circumstances. He further deposed that no written order or memo was ever issued to him by superintendent or Office Incharge for his leave under dispute except the memo on the basis of which this enquiry was framed. He further submitted that he submitted his EL to the department but his EL were never presented before the Leave Sanctioning Authority, if the same would have been presented, the enquiry would not have been commenced.
8. No other witness was produced by the delinquent in his defence so after completion of the evidence in the case, the case was fixed for final arguments.
9. Defence assistant Sh. Ashok Chander Dhyani argued at length and submitted that department has failed to prove the previous conduct of delinquent as previous order by which delinquent was warned has not been proved on record. He further argued that the delinquent had taken the leaves due to illness of his mother and due to peculiar circumstances in his family. He further submitted that delinquent has not given EL due to lack of knowledge. He further argued that delinquent submitted the EL form DE NO.01/2010 Page5/8 DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. along with reply to memo dated 20.01.2010 but the said reply was not considered before initiating disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, presenting officer has not appeared to advance the arguments for department.
10. I have given careful consideration to the submission of defence assistant and perused the material available on record.
11. It is not disputed by the delinquent that he was absent from his duty on 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009 to 31.10.2009 and 27.11.2009. It is admitted case of delinquent that he has sent the reply to memo dated 20.01.2010 same is Ex.SW1/D1. The reply Ex.SW1/D1 reveals that delinquent has given specific number of memo which is on record so under these circumstances, it has proved that memo bearing no.3373/A522/ABS/ACJ/10 was served upon delinquent seeking his explanation regarding unauthorized absence. Further, in reply to the memo Ex.SW1/D1 delinquent categorically stated that due to illness of his mother, he was frequently absent in the month of October,2009 and due to nonavailability of CL, he could not inform to the office. The delinquent along with his reply also sent the application for deduction of his earned leave for the period on which he was absent from his duty. In his reply, DE NO.01/2010 Page6/8 DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. delinquent also admitted that he had no casual leave when he was absent during the month of October,2009. SW2 also proved vide Ex.SW2/1 that delinquent has not submitted any casual leave for the period of his absence.
12. The defence put by delinquent is that he was absent from duty due to illness of his mother. Admittedly, delinquent has not brought any evidence on record which suggest that his mother was not well during that period i.e. in the month of October 2009 and on 27.11.2009. Further, the statement of imputation AnnexureII also reveals that the reply of delinquent to the effect that he was absent from duty due to illness of his mother was considered before initiation of this disciplinary enquiry.
13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that delinquent was absent from his duty on 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009 to 31.10.2009 without prior permission and intimation, therefore, he is guilty of charge of unauthorized absent.
14. As far as the previous conduct of delinquent is concerned, department has neither produced any document nor led any evidence to prove that the delinquent was earlier held guilty and warned to be careful DE NO.01/2010 Page7/8 DEPARTMENTAL EN. PARMOD, SAFAI K. for his unauthorized absence. Under these circumstances, department has failed to prove that delinquent was earlier held guilty and warned to be careful vide order dated 01.08.2008, 31.08.2009 and 09.10.2009.
15. Admittedly, there is no monetary loss to the government for the unauthorized absence of delinquent, so major penalty cannot be imposed upon the delinquent and therefore I recommend for minor penalty of break in service of delinquent under F.R. 17A for the period i.e. 03.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 08.10.2009, 09.10.2009, 29.10.2009 to 31.10.2009 and 27.11.2009 on which he was unauthorizedly absent. Under the given facts, above said recommendation is made accordingly.
Report is submitted. File be sent back to the office of Ld. Administrative Civil Judge (Central) Delhi in a sealed cover.
Announced In Open Court (RAVINDER SINGH)
29.02.2012 Administrative Civil Judge(East)
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi
DE NO.01/2010 Page8/8