Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Shakuntla Kalra vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 3 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 834/2012 New Delhi this the 3rd day of October, 2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Smt. Shakuntla Kalra, W/o Sh. K.K. Kalra, R/o H. No. 1143, Sector 15 (Part-II), Gurgaon (Haryana). Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through The Chief Secretary, New Sectt. New Delhi. 2. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt. New Delhi. 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Distt. South West-B School Complex, Najafgarh, New Delhi-47. 4. The Principal, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya Samalka, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
This is the second round of litigation by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to grant her re-employment w.e.f. 01.09.2010 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.
2. Earlier, she had filed OA 3485/2010 challenging the Annexure A-3 order of the respondents dated 23.08.2010 rejecting her application dated 02.08.2010 for re-employment on the ground that her previous work and conduct were not found satisfactory. The applicant had submitted in the said OA that there were three grounds taken by the Principal stating her work and conduct report was not satisfactory, namely (i) that she had gone abroad without getting the leave sanctioned and a show cause notice was served upon her in that regard but she did not bother to submit the reply to the same; (ii) that she had threatened the Principal for not considering her request for re-employment and a memorandum was served upon her in that regard but she refused to receive the same; and (iii) the further two other Memoranda dated 03.08.2010 and 05.08.2010 were issued to her but she ignored them also. As regards the unauthorized leave availed by her is concerned, she has stated that the same has been regularized later. So far as the aforesaid Memoranda issued to her are concerned, she has stated that no final orders have been passed on them.
3. However, the respondents contention was that the automatic re-employment is allowed subject to provisional fitness required to be assessed by the DDE of the concerned District on the basis of work and conduct report, vigilance clearance and medical certificate. In the case of the applicant, her work and conduct was found unsatisfactory as in the year 2007 she defied the departmental rules by not getting her Earned Leave sanctioned by HOS deliberately and had gone abroad. Initially, she got NOC from 15.07.2007 to 31.08.2007 and she had applied for leave from 01.07.2007 to 31.08.2007 which was duly forwarded by the Principal on 07.04.2007. Subsequently, when she changed her travel plan, she was required to give a revised application with the revised dates to the Principal. While issuing NOC, it was made clear that the employee has to get her leave sanctioned before proceeding to foreign country. Instead of doing so, she purposely did not give any application to the Principal in time. Therefore, adverse remarks were given to the applicant in her ACR and her request for expunction of the same was rejected.
4. In view of the above position, this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.07.2011 observed that the period of her visit to abroad has already been regularized by granting leave for the entire period and she has also been given pay and allowances for the said period. This Tribunal has also observed that the respondents have not taken any final decision on the Memoranda dated 03.08.2010 and 05.08.2010. Therefore, this Tribunal has directed the respondents to apply its mind to the aforesaid facts and pass reasoned and speaking orders within three weeks.
5. Accordingly, the respondents have passed the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 05.01.2012 stating therein that the applicant was denied re-employment on the basis of the following conduct report:
(a) Smt. Sakuntala Kalra threatened the HOS and misbehaved with HOS. The Memo No. 444/SKV/10 dated 03/08/10 speaks, And whereas Mrs. Sakuntala Kalra, TGT (Social Science) was asked to follow up the instructions/Guidelines for re-employment earlier issued to her then she again misbehaved with HOS stating that she wants her re-employment without fulfilling any formalities.
And whereas as this act of misbehave on the part of said Mrs. Sakuntala Kalra, TGT (Social Science) is quite unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and shows lack of devotion towards her duties and total disregard to the sanctity of conduct rules.
The letter No. 690/SKV/10 dated 28/09/10 speaks, Reasons for unsatisfactory work & Conduct Report:-
(ii) That you have made threatening to the undersigned about your re-employment, in this regard Memorandum was served upon you but you have clearly refused to receive the same.
(iii) Further two another memorandum dated 3/08/10 and 05/08/10 were also served upon, but you did not bothered to submit reply.
(b) Smt. Sakuntala Kalra has shown insubordination by refusing to accept the Memos of HOS and not even bothering to reply them. It shows clear arrogance and adamant behaviour on the part of Smt. Sakuntala Kalra.
(c) The Memos No. 438 dated 04/08/10 and Memo Ref No. 450/skvs/10 dated 05/08/10 shows that Smt. Sakuntala Kalra is negligent towards her duties. She failed to maintain the discipline in the class. It shows that Smt. Sakuntala Kalra lacks devotion towards her duties. A teacher, who have no control on her students cannot be a boon for any institution and cannot contribute to the development of the students.
6. The contention of the applicant is that the issue regarding Memoranda dated 03.08.2010 and 05.08.2010 has already been agitated before this Tribunal. She has refuted the contention of the respondents that she did not bother to submit reply to those Memoranda. Further, she has submitted that the Principal was biased against her and that was the reason that at the fag end of her career to deprive her re-employment prospects, the aforesaid two Memoranda were issued to her and it was done for the purpose of spoiling her work and conduct report. She has also submitted that as per the Notification dated 28.01.2007, automatic re-employment to the teachers is subject to fitness and vigilance clearance and in her case the competent authority has already given report on 31.07.2010 in her favour for the purpose of re-employment. As regards the fitness is concerned, she has stated that it is clear from the facts that she is performing her duties without any complaints and, therefore, non-granting the automatic re-employment to her is illegal and arbitrary in the eyes of law.
7. The respondents have filed their reply reiterating the aforesaid position stated in the impugned order.
8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. First of all, it is seen that the applicant has already retired from service on 31.08.2010. The automatic re-employment is for a period of two years and the said period is already over by 01.09.2012. Therefore, there is no question of directing the respondents to re-employ her for the aforesaid period. Now, the only question is regarding the arrears of pay and allowances claimed by the applicant for the aforesaid period. The main contention of the applicant is that the Principal of the School was biased against her and that was the reason why he has issued two Memoranda to her at the fag end of her service. However, the fact remains that she remained on unauthorized leave and the regularization of the same is only an administrative requirement. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant remaining on unauthorized leave cannot be just ignored. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this case and it is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
`SRD