The High Court of Delhi has set aside a penalty order imposed on an Assistant Section Officer, ruling that the denial of Child Care Leave (CCL) by the department was “mechanical” and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence suffered from “procedural irregularities and substantive infirmities.”
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain allowed the writ petition filed by Ritu Ravi Prakash, directing the restoration of her pay and consequential service benefits within eight weeks. The Court observed that the punishment imposed “shocks the conscience” as the allegations stemmed entirely from the petitioner’s efforts to avail leave for her minor daughters.
Brief Summary
The legal issue before the Court was whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence—after her applications for Child Care Leave (CCL) were rejected—were in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The Court held that while CCL is not a matter of right, the power to decline it must be exercised reasonably. The Bench further held that once a period of absence is regularized as ‘Extra-Ordinary Leave’ (EOL), it cannot be made the subject of departmental proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated June 29, 2021, and the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an Assistant Section Officer in the Central Secretariat Service, is a mother of two daughters. Between 2012 and 2016, when her daughters were in Class X and XII, she applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) on several occasions.
The record indicates that while posted in the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and later the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the petitioner’s leave applications were repeatedly declined or not processed citing “exigencies of work” or rotational transfer orders. Specifically, a request for 54 days of CCL in 2014 was not acceded to despite the petitioner citing that similarly situated employees were granted leave.
Following her absence from duty, a Memorandum of Charges was issued on December 11, 2015. The charges alleged that the petitioner exhibited “gross negligence by absenting herself from duty wilfully” and “lack of devotion to duty.” The Inquiry Officer (IO), in a report dated August 10, 2018, held that the articles of charge were not proved.
However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the IO’s findings and issued a disagreement note. Subsequently, after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), a penalty was imposed on September 23, 2019: a reduction of pay by two stages for three years, with a further direction that she would not earn increments during this period.
The petitioner challenged this penalty before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed her application, leading to the present writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of CCL applications citing staff shortage was arbitrary, pointing out that other officials, such as one Smt. Savita Thakur and Smt. Rekha, were granted long spells of leave during the same period.
Regarding the disciplinary procedure, the petitioner contended that the “disagreement note” issued by the Disciplinary Authority was conclusive rather than tentative, violating Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was argued that the Authority had pre-judged the issue.
Furthermore, the petitioner raised the plea of double jeopardy. It was submitted that the period of absence from March 11, 2014, to August 8, 2014, had already been regularized as Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL), and deductions were made from her salary for late attendance. Therefore, administrative action having been taken, disciplinary proceedings for the same cause were impermissible.
Respondent’s Submissions: The Union of India argued that under Rule 43-C(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The respondent justified the rejection of leave on the grounds of administrative exigencies and staff shortage in the SCD-VI Section.
The respondent further submitted that the regularization of absence as EOL did not preclude independent disciplinary action for misconduct. Regarding the disagreement note, it was argued that the note merely reflected a provisional view and the process was not pre-determined.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Denial of Child Care Leave The Court observed that while leave cannot be claimed as a right, the authority must exercise its power reasonably. The Bench noted that the respondent failed to produce records substantiating the claim of staff shortage.
“The denial of CCL in such circumstances, despite repeated representations and the absence of a substantiated administrative necessity, cannot be sustained in law. The approach of the respondent, rather than reflecting a balanced consideration of the petitioner’s legitimate request, demonstrates mechanical rejection and a disregard to the beneficial intent underlying the CCL scheme,” Justice Madhu Jain observed in the judgment.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Kakali Ghosh v. Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration regarding the beneficial intent of the CCL scheme.
On Validity of the Disagreement Note Analyzing Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Court emphasized that a disagreement note must be “tentative.” The Court found that the note in the present case recorded “substantiated misdemeanor on part of the C.O.,” which conveyed finality.
“Such pre-judgment renders the subsequent consideration of the petitioner’s representation an empty formality. The process, therefore, stands vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguard embodied in Rule 15(2),” the Court held.
The Bench cited the decisions in Rajpal Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Satish Pal Singh to support the finding that a conclusive disagreement note violates principles of fair hearing.
On Double Jeopardy and Regularization of Leave The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention regarding double jeopardy. Referencing the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, the Bench held:
“Additionally, we also find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of absence from 11.03.2014 to 08.08.2014 having been regularized as EOL, could not have then been made a subject of departmental proceedings.”
On Proportionality of Punishment The Court found the penalty of pay reduction grossly disproportionate, noting that the allegations did not involve moral turpitude or corruption.
“The punishment, therefore, shocks the conscience of this Court and fails the test of proportionality as reiterated in Amandeep (supra).”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated June 29, 2021, and the penalty order dated September 23, 2019. The Court directed the respondent to restore the petitioner’s pay and consequential service benefits within eight weeks. No order was made as to costs.
Case Title: Ritu Ravi Prakash v. Union of India Case No: W.P.(C) 15193/2021 Date of Judgment: 20.11.2025 Coram: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain
