Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sarestha Devi vs M/O Defence on 2 May, 2018
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
O.A.060/00806/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 060/00806/2016
Pronounced on : 02.05.2018
Reserved on : 15.03.2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A)
Sarestha Devi, aged 42 years, W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Village
Jasum, PO-Sulan, The-Palampur, Distt. Kangra (H.P.), Pin - 176 085
.............Applicant
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Gobin Korla
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, 101-A, South Block, New
Delhi through its Secretary.
2. Head Quarter 21, SUB Area, PIN-90821, C/o 56, APO, through
Commanding Officer.
3. Military Hospital Palampur, PIN-176 061, c/o 56, APO,
Commanding Officer.
...........Respondents
BY ADVOCATE: None
ORDER
BY MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A):-
1. Applicant is appointed as a Messenger in 1998 with respondent No. 3. Applicant's argument is that two Messengers are essential for the smooth working of the administrative office.
However, one Messenger i.e. the applicant is assigned duties of the administrative office and the second Messenger is performing duties at the MI room. The applicant vehemently protests against the order directing her to perform two hours of duty at the MI room. Since the 2 O.A.060/00806/2016 applicant did not perform the said duties at the MI room, her salary has been deducted. The said deduction of salary without initiating disciplinary action is resisted by the applicant.
2. Applicant received Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2015 from respondent No. 3 wherein she has been informed that she was absent from duty on 21.10.2015, 15.01.2016, 22.01.2016, 25.01.2016, 22.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 from 14.30 hours to 16.00 hours. Applicant submitted reply to all the Show Cause Notices. The salary of the applicant was deducted by respondent No. 3 without prior information. The reason given by the respondents for the Show Cause Notice was that the JCO had reported absence of the applicant in the MI Room from 1400 hrs to 1600 hrs and on the order of the Commanding Officer, the said period was declared dies non and salary of six days deducted. The applicant's argument is that she should have been proceeded with under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and without so doing, the action of the respondents was illegal.
3. The applicant contests the lack of departmental inquiry before order of dies non was passed. The relief sought by the applicant is to set aside the order of dies non which has been imposed without holding any inquiry and refund the deduction made from the salary as a consequence thereof. Applicant also prays that the duties assigned to her in the MI Room be dispensed with.
4. The respondents in the reply statement submit that the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as Messenger and is now posted at Military Hospital, Palampur. There are two 3 O.A.060/00806/2016 Messengers working in the Military Hospital. Applicant was detailed to work in the main office and the second Messenger one Multan Singh was detailed to work in MI Room and his duty was to convey messages to hospitals/wards and departments. In view of the limited availability of staff, the duties were judiciously organized so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the hospital.
5. The Sixth CPC has re-designated the erstwhile Group 'D' post as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and this includes the Civilian Messenger, the post which the applicant holds. As per para 8 of duties of the Civilian Messengers, it is mentioned that they will carry out any other duties assigned by the superior officer. From the respondents' reply, the fact that comes out is that the duties are so assigned so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the hospital.
6. Applicant was detailed for three days in the week to work from 14.00 Hrs. to 16.00 Hrs. in the MI Room. As per Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence Charter of Duties, the applicant is required to work 40 hours a week as Civilian Staff of AMC. Hence, the duties assigned to the applicant is assigned in a manner so as to ensure smooth working of the hospital and at the same time, ensure that applicant's duties are restricted to 40 hours a week. Despite confining the duties of applicant to 40 hours a week, the applicant declined to perform the duties of Messenger in the MI Room of the Hospital and willfully absented herself in the latter part of the day particularly for the period 1400 Hrs. to 1600 Hrs. assigned to her in the MI Room. Annexure R-6 (colly) is the absentee report of the 4 O.A.060/00806/2016 applicant on various dates from 26.06.2015 to 21.10.2015 from 1400 Hrs. to 1600 Hrs. For the above period of absence from duty, the applicant was issued Show Cause Notices. The applicant replied to few of the Show Cause Notices and on finding that the replies of the applicant were not satisfactory, the Show Cause Notice was issued after calculating the number of hours, applicant remained absent from duty. Such period of absence was treated as dies non and pay deducted for the part of the duty for which she had absented herself.
7. Respondent No. 3 also on 27.07.2016 also submits that till the dispute regarding legality of assigning Messenger duties at the Hospital MI Room issue is established, applicant was given Messenger duty at the Hospital Administration Block only.
8. The respondent brings to our notice that keeping in view the need and requirement of the hospital, redistribution of work can be done by the competent authority. Post 6th CPC, all Group 'D' posts have been given the uniform designation of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). Hence, the respondents' requirement of the applicant working both in the administrative block of the hospital and in the MI Room falls well within the description of multi tasking. Further, para 8 of the duties of the Civilian Messengers also states that they will carry out any other duties assigned by the superior officers.
9. Applicant has no case that she is being made to work beyond the prescribed duty hours. The only grievance of the applicant is that she is being made to work both at the Hospital Administrative Block and the Hospital MI Room. That the duties in 5 O.A.060/00806/2016 both the establishments exceed eight hours is not the case of the applicant.
10. On a perusal of the documents produced, we note that 42 absent reports in respect of the applicant have been made out by the MI Room as seen from Annexure R-6 (colly). We also noticed from Annexure R-7 (colly) that Show Cause Notices were issued regarding absence from duty to the applicant for all the periods for which Annexure A-6 absent reports were issued. Applicant does not have an argument that she has not received the Show Cause Notices or that she has not replied to the same.
11. The respondents argue that the applicant replied to some of the Show Cause Notices and not to some others. On a consideration of the Show Cause Notices issued and the reply received, a case of willful absence from assigned duties at the MI Room was established. It was also established that the willful absence was an unauthorized as applicant failed to attend to assigned duties in the hospital. Applicant's case is one of performance of duty for part of the day and to leave office without permission for the period when she was required to perform duty at the MI Room or remaining in the administrative office when her presence was required in the MI room. This is a clear case of the applicant refusing to perform the assigned duties.
12. The 6th CPC while giving enhanced scales to all employees also undertook a re-structuring in order to extract better work in return for better and higher pay scales. The 6th CPC had 6 O.A.060/00806/2016 noticed that whereas full-time post was created, the work assigned was such that it did not keep some of the employees fully occupied for the 8 hours of duties which justifies a post. Hence, they worked out a system by which all Group 'D' posts were re-designated as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) i.e. they would be required to do 8 hours of work which would include several items of work so that the re-designated MTS staff are fully occupied for the eight hours minus their lunch break. This was done so that full work can be extracted without such persons remaining idle in such posts where the nature of the work was light and to re-assign them for sharing the work of posts where the nature of work was heavy. This was what was attempted when the applicant was asked to work for two hours in MI Room. To protest against this assignment of duty or to refuse to do the work was against the intention of 6th CPC Multi Tasking Staff definition and re-designation.
13. The applicant in the OA admits that she refused to do work as she was being made to work against two posts. We find that this was due to lack of appreciation or understanding of the Multi Tasking Staff designation assigned to Group 'D' posts by the VI CPC. Hence, the willful absence from the MI duty assigned was unbecoming on the part of the applicant, particularly in view of the fact that there was a clause in para 8 of the duties of the Civilian Messengers that they will carry out any other duties assigned by the superior officers. The action of the respondents is fully covered by the para 8 and the applicant has no cause to protest against the 7 O.A.060/00806/2016 same. The applicant had knowingly and deliberately absented herself despite the knowledge that her post was re-designated as Multi Tasking Staff by VI CPC. Applicant also has no case that more than 40 hours of work in a week was extracted from her. The respondents runs a military hospital where the service of the best quality is required to be provided to the beneficiaries. Hence, the applicant's refusal to carry out the duties which were restricted to 8 hours per day or 40 hours in a week is highly unbecoming of an employee and we see no reason to overlook or excuse such rebelliousness. The willful absence was wrong and cannot be allowed to be perpetuated or endorsed by the Bench.
14. For the aforestated discussion we find no merit in the present OA and dismiss the same. No costs.
(P. GOPINATH) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated:
ND*