8/15/2019 removal service.pdf

1/5

 

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

  DIR EC TORA TE OF EDUCA TION)

OLD SECTT., DELHI

No. DE.7/1 07/DPfTGTNig/HQ/2015/ l 1 ~\~-Z

ORDER

WHEREAS, Srnt. Sushma Sharma, TGT N.Sc), GGSSS, Jhilmil Colony, Deihl

was charge sheeted under Rule   of CCS (eCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum

No.F.DE-47/ENig/2010/1541 dated 25.8.2010 for the following article of charge:-

  Article I

Whereas the Principal. GGSSS, Jtulmil Colony, has informed Ihal Smt. Sushma

Sharma;, TGT NSc)

Sydney Auslralia) w.e.t.

who was permitted to leave the country for

1012008   7.10.2008 had attended Ihe school uplo

25.7.08 and after leaving the country she has unauthorisedly absenting from her

duties and not joined her dulies till-date.

And whereas her application dated 19 11 2 8 for extension of earned leave

upio 11/2/2009 was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated

iO.1.09. But een after sending severe communications to Smt. Sushma

Sharma,

TGT NSc) she has not joined her dulles till dale and absenting from

dulies unauthorisedly

Thus the above said misconduct

011

the part of Smt. Sushma Sharma,

TGT NSc.)

 f

unbecoming of

a

Gov servant under rule  ofthe CCS Conducl)

Rules, 1965,

AND WHEREAS, on denial of charge by the Charged Official , Smt. Neelam

Yadav, Principal, GGSSS, Kanf Nagar, Delhi and Smt Rttu Vig, Head Clerk, SV, Anand

Vihar, Delhi were appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, respectively, in the

case vide orders dated 14.12.2010 Due to administrative reasons, the Presenting

Officer in the case was changed a ~umber of times and lastly, SrnJ:. Manju Puri Head

CI~r~, GGSSS, Kanti Nagar, Delhi was appoinled as PO vide order dated 31.1.2011.

Conld

8/15/2019 removal service.pdf

2/5

2-

AND WHEREAS, the Inquiry Officer has submitted her report dated 6.12.2014

thereby proving the article of charge framed against the Charged Official.

AND WHEREAS; a copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the Charged

Official for making her representation,

if

any there upon, vide memorandum dated

1.7.2015. The Charged Official has submitted her representation 20.9.2015 on the said

inquiry report

AND WHEREAS, the Charged Official in her above representation has

submitted

that on 26.7.200~ she proceeded on sanctioned earned leave of 90 days for the

admission of her daughter in Australia, but since they could not reach there in time, the

admission of her daughter was delayed for several months which compelled her to stay

there for the said purpose as there was no option to wait for the turn. Surrounded by the

critical circumstances, she applied for extension of leave vide application dated

19.10.2008 i.e. well before the expiry .of sanctioned leave period..

AND WHEREAS , the Charged Official has submitted that her application for

extension of leave was rejected by bluntly violating the provisions of rule 12 of leave

rules which specifies that in exceptional circumstances, leave can be granted for

continuous period of 5 years.

AND WHEREAS, the Charged Official has further submitted that while abroad,

she met with an accident and sustained serious injuries  n her shoulder, ribs and chest

which pushed her to undergo long treatment at abroad. However, the Charged Official

without any break and well in time applied for leave and apprised the concerned

authorities about her said ailment and submitted her medical prescriptions.

AND WHEREAS, the Charged Official has submitted that the concerned

authorities also failed to appreciate the provisions .contained in rule 45 of Leave rules

w~~re there is provision of grant of sp.ecial DisabilityLeave for accider: taljnjur~.

. Contd.

8/15/2019 removal service.pdf

3/5

 

AND WHEREAS, It has further been contended by the Charged Official that on

5.7.2011, she went to the Principal of the school and requested to allow her to join the

duties but the Principal mala fide did not allow to resume her duties. Thereafter, she

presented herself ~efore the Dy. Director of Education(East) and requested her to direct

the concerned school to allow her for joining but that too did not find favor.

AND WHERE~S, in the end of her representation, the Charged Official has

submitted that the Inquiry Officer while submitting her report has not taken into

consideration the Charged Official s un blemished past service records in which she has

been awarded and accolades and appreciations of her distinguished work

AND WHEREAS, the undersigned has carefully gone through the chargesheet

memo, Inquiry Report and other relevant record of the case adduced before me.

AND WHEREAS, perusal of the record reveals that the Charged Official was

granted NOC for visiting Sydney(Australia) during the period 10.7.2008 to 7.10.2008 by

the Competent Authority vide memorandum dated 25.6.2008 with the condition that she

will not s1ay abroad beyond the period for which permission was. accorded. The Charged

Official was supposed to join her duties

-w.e.f.

8.10.2008, afler expiry of period

for

which

permission was accorded, however, instead of joining her duties, she sent an application

dated 19.10.2008, that too after expiry of sanctioned leave, for extension of earned leave

upto

11.2 2009

on family circumstances. Applying for extension of leave clearly indicates

that the Charged Official failed to comply with the terms and conditions as laid down in

the NOC dated 25.6.2008 .

AND WHEREAS, on receipt of application dated 19 10.2008 from the Charged

Official, a letter dated 17.11.2008 was Issued to her by the Head of School intimating that

her request for extension of earned leave was rejected and the Charged Official was

accordingly directed to immediately join her duties In spite of specific directions for

JOining the duties issued to the Charged Official vide letter dated 17.11.2008, she failed to

duties. Thereafter, numerous memorandums/show cause notice dated

Contd ..

8/15/2019 removal service.pdf

4/5

I

- 4-

, 3.1 1 2009, 22.4.2009 and 13.8.2009 were issued to the Charged Official by the

concerned Dy Director of Education to join her duties, however, the Charged Official

failed to comply the directions issued by her superior authorities and never Joined the

duties since then, thus proving the willful absence on part of the Charged Official

AND WHEREAS, as per provisions of rule

 

of the CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972,

leave cannot be claimed as of right and when the exiqences of public service so require,

leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it. The

request for extensipn of leave made by the Charged Official vide application dated

I

1910.2008 was duly considered by the competent authority before rejecting the same.

 

i

AND WHEREAS, contention of the Charged Official that she was entitled for

grant of Special Disability Leave as per provisions contained in rule 45 of Leave Rules is

not tenable as

it

is clearly indicated in the said rule that the period of leave shall be such

as is certified by an Authorised Medical Attendant which is not done in the present case.

AND WHEREAS, contention of the Charged Official that she was not allowed to

join her duties by the school authorities as well as by the district authorities on 5.7.2011 is

f

also not tenable as there is nothing on record which proves her said contention. The

Charged Official has also not submitted any documentary evidence in support of her said

claim which shows that it is just an afterthought attempted by the Charged Official to turn

 

the matter in her favor.

I

AND WHEREAS, the Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry proceedings in the

case as per provisions contained in rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and has taken

into consideration all the facts/record of the case before concluding her findinqs. The

undersigned fully agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

AND WHEREAS, willful and unauthorized absence of Charged Official w.e.f.

8.10.2008 to till date shows that the official is no more interested to continue in

 

government service. The same is corroborated by the fact that ·in spite of declaring

completely fit to do light duties by the Medical Practitioner Vide certificate dated 5 12012,

::ed Officia.l: has not joined her duties till date.

. Contd ..

I

8/15/2019 removal service.pdf

5/5

5

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being the competent authority, after taking

into consideration the facts and all the

relevant

record of the case, hereby imposes a

penalty of Removal from service upon Smt. Sushma Sharma, TGT(N.Sc.) with

immediate effect Further, the unauthorised absence period w.e.f 8.10.2008 to till date in

respect of the official be treated as Dies-Non for all purposes.

I

I order accordingly.

smt.

Sushma Sharma, TGT(N.Sc.),

GGSSS, Jhilrnil Colony, Delhi.

through DDE(East}

No. DE 7/107IDPfTGTNig/HQ/2015 lY3\-5

 

Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:

1. 6DE(East), Dte. of Education, Delhi.

2. ADE(E-III), Dte. of Education, Delhi.

3.

) l0S/DDO/PAO concerned through DDE(East).

vY

OS(IT), Dte. of Education, Delhi.

5. Guard file.

  I

I ~

Director Education

Dated-C l f o 1 / 1 < : :

(A~ta)

Dy. Director of Edn.(Vig.)