Vandana Khatri W/O Nishant Sharda vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the repatriation of the petitioner during her sanctioned maternity leave, without issuing the stipulated three months' advance notice, constituted a procedural irregularity. The Court found that the Directorate General of Vigilance failed to comply with the DoP&T instructions dated 17.06.2010, which mandate advance notice for premature relieving of deputationists. The Court observed that the petitioner was on approved maternity leave and not unauthorizedly absent. The Court noted that the administrative exigency cited for repatriation appeared to stem from an administrative warning issued without seeking a proper explanation, leading to her immediate transfer during a vulnerable period. The Court emphasized that while repatriation is an employer's right, it must be exercised in accordance with prevalent rules. The Court allowed the petition partly, directing the respondent to follow the prescribed procedure of issuing notice before repatriation and to pay the petitioner's salary without fail within four weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Vandana Khatri, was appointed as an Inspector on deputation to the Directorate General of Vigilance, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, for a period of three years from July 17, 2020. Her husband is also posted in Ahmedabad. On September 20, 2021, she applied for 180 days of maternity leave, which was granted from September 27, 2021, to March 25, 2022. She gave birth on November 4, 2021. On November 15, 2021, while still in her postpartum period and with a 10-day-old child, she received an email order repatriating her to her parent department, CGST Audit, Durgapur, effective immediately. She alleges this was done without notice and inhumanely, especially as she was on maternity leave. The repatriation order was issued by the Directorate General of Vigilance, Ahmedabad.

Key Issues

1. Whether the repatriation of the petitioner to her parent department during her sanctioned maternity leave, without prior notice, is in violation of the applicable rules and principles of natural justice, particularly the DoP&T instructions dated 17.06.2010, and thus constitutes procedural irregularity? The petitioner argued that her repatriation during maternity leave, without notice, was an inhuman and illegal act, violating Leave Rules and deputation terms. She contended that the repatriation order failed to comply with the requirement of giving three months' advance notice to the lending department and the employee, as stipulated in the Establishment Order and DoP&T guidelines. She also highlighted the lack of payment of her leave salary. The respondent contended that officers on deputation are liable to be repatriated at any time due to exigencies of service, as per the Establishment Order. They claimed the petitioner had suppressed facts, that her repatriation was accepted by her parent department, and that she had been communicated the relieving order via WhatsApp. They also alleged irregularities and lethargy in her work prior to her leave, citing a warning and a lack of log-ins on the e-office portal.