Sumedha Bhatti vs. State Of Hp And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, as a government servant, failed to adhere to the rules and regulations governing her employment. She did not follow the prescribed procedure for applying for leave, nor did she comply with the transfer orders. The Court found no provision for ex post facto sanction of earned leave in the manner claimed by the petitioner, emphasizing that leave cannot be claimed as a right and must be applied for in accordance with the law before proceeding on leave. The petitioner's prolonged absence from duty for over a year without valid reason was noted. The Court also observed that the subject matter of the writ petition was already under consideration through a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and she could not preempt the decision by filing the petition. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The observations made were specific to the determination of the petition and would not impact the ongoing disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the show cause notice. The request for a separate room was contingent on her regularization of duty.

Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise (ACST&E), sought to extend her earned leave from January 6, 2019, to March 7, 2019, after being ordered to transfer to Nurpur. She claimed to have forwarded her request via FAX and received assurances of ex post facto sanction. Subsequently, she was transferred to Shimla and joined on March 19, 2019. The petitioner's salary was stopped from August 2019. She filed a writ petition seeking payment of salary for January-February 2019 and August 2019 onwards, sanction of her leave ex post facto, quashing of a show cause notice dated June 29, 2019, and another order (Annexure P-7), and a proper office environment. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to submit a revised leave request, was marked absent on the biometric machine only once in May 2019, and had a history of absence and insubordination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary for the period January 2019 to February 2019 and from August 2019 onwards, and sanction of her earned leave from January 6, 2019, to March 7, 2019, ex post facto, in light of her alleged unauthorized absence and failure to follow prescribed procedures for leave application and transfer compliance? 2. Whether the show cause notice dated June 29, 2019, and Annexure P-7 are liable to be quashed and set aside on grounds of being false, frivolous, illegal, and arbitrary? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a separate, conducive office environment as per the Prevention of Women Sexual Harassment guidelines? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought salary for the periods of alleged absence, ex post facto sanction of leave, and quashing of the show cause notice and Annexure P-7. She also requested a proper office environment. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to submit a revised leave request, was irregularly present in office, and had a history of absence and defiance of superior orders. They asserted that salary was stopped due to her absence without prior sanction and that she neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for disciplinary proceedings. Regarding the office space, they stated it would be provided upon her regularization of duty.