Child care leave

 The following is with limited understanding on the subject.

Valuable advice of learned experts/members is sought.

During the inquiry employee should be available. The higher authority has cancelled the leave citing reason.

Probably after the verdict of the court fresh inquiry has been initiated.

Kindly approach a lawyer specializing in such cases.

https://cvc.nic.in/vigman/chapterv.pdf

CHAPTER V

SUSPENSION

7. Date of effect of order of suspension

7.5

When a Government servant is placed under suspension while he is on leave, the un-

expired portion of the leave should be cancelled by an order to that effect

https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1439527/

Punjab-Haryana High Court

K.K. Jaggia vs State Of Punjab Through The Chief ... on 28 September, 1966

What I could  understand about the above case is

 (1) The teacher was terminated and based on the HC Order, she was 

         reinstated.   That means that inquiry, punishment and reinstatement is over.

(2)  Now the Teacher is on Child care leave. Leave is sanctioned by the Principal

      the authority competent to sanction leave.  There is no mention about whether

     there is a fresh inquiry instituted against the teacher ? on the old charges or

    any new charges ?   

(3) The authority above the Principal cancelled the child care leave on the ground that an 

      inquiry is pending against her.  On what basis the above authority came to this conclusion?

     Who apprised him that an inquiry is pending against the said teacher ?  As per the office procedure

     the papers must be forwared through the Principal only. 

Without giving the full facts, an opinion cannot be given on the above case. If interested to get the right advice please give the full details.

sir, thanks for the reply.. i have marked my query and reply in bold and underline

(1) The teacher was terminated and based on the HC Order, she was reinstated. That means that inquiry, punishment and reinstatement is over. " IT WAS OPEN TO AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE THE INQUIRY GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO EMPLOYEE, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO FROM LAST 1 YEAR "

(2) Now the Teacher is on Child care leave. Leave is sanctioned by the Principal the authority competent to sanction leave. There is no mention about whether there is a fresh inquiry instituted against the teacher ? on the old charges or any new charges ? "INQUIRY ON THE BASIS OF OLD CHARGES" " CHILD CARE LEAVE IS TAKEN ON ACCOUNT OF ILLNESS OF CHILD AND HER BOARD EXAMINATION" 

(3) The authority above the Principal cancelled the child care leave on the ground that an inquiry is pending against her. On what basis the above authority came to this conclusion? Who apprised him that an inquiry is pending against the said teacher ? As per the office procedure the papers must be forwared through the Principal only. "SINCE THE FRESH INQUIRY COMMITTE WAS FORMED BY SENIOR AUTHORITY , WHO HAD CANCELLED LEAVE, HE IS AWARE ABOUT STATUS.. ALSO CANCELLATION OF LEAVE ORDER HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO EMPLOYEE BY THE PRINCIPAL THROUGH COVERING LETTER"

The relevant provision of CCL is reproduced below for your information.

From the given facts, what I could understand the termination of the employee was done before completion of the inquiry and not based on any enquiry findings.  I think, on that ground, the Hon'ble HC has directed for re-instatement of the employee. Now the enquiry,  which was stopped at the termination, is in progress.

During this period the employee is on Child care leave.  In order to complete the enquiry and to provide an opportunity to the employee to defend, the CCL is cancelled and the employee is directed to report back on duty. 

CCL or any other leave is not a matter of right. Employer has a right to recall the employee from leave.

Now the employee may cooperate with the enquiry and defend her case.

No employee can be denied any leave during pendancy of inquiry.  Aklthoug leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right it can be refused in exigancies of service but not pending inqiry (which can go for years) is no grund for refusal.  SInc ePrincipal has sanctioned the leve it was not a case of exigancy of serivce.  One can attend inquiry even during leave also./

The decision is malafide.

If the teacher had taken a stand that she will not be appearing before the inquiry , since she is on CCL, then 

cancellation of CCL is justified.  

If the teacher is sure that the cancellation of CCL by higher authority of the Principal is done with a malafide

intention, or to deny the legitimate right of an employee citing the background of the enquiry,  then the teacher may move the Hon"ble High Court against the order of cancellation of her CCL.  

I have strongly different opinion.  One can appear in inqury even during leave. 

However it is not sure whether she has taken a stand of being on leave to delay inquiry. Querist has to come with full facts.

Having difference of opinion is a sign of learning and  I always wanted to learn. 

Hence I welcome your different opinion, Sudir Kumar Sir.

As per the limited information available  from the original post,

this  case is of an employee who has been terminated on some charges

and reinstated based on a HC order with liberty to the employer to continue with the enquiry. 

Inspite of the pending enquiry, the Principal had sanctioned CCL. 

Now it seems that the employer wanted to complete the enquiry and 

wanted the presence of the employee.  I think the employer had no malafide

intention  in cancelling the CCL.  If the employer had any malafide intention, 

he could have denied CCL or he could have suspended the employee pending enquiry.

Now let the employee use this opportunity to prove her innocence and come out of the enquiry.

On the bsis of long experience in disciplinary proceedings in Govt sector I am very much confident and sure (unchanging) that employee being on CCL is no hurdle for inquiry unless the employee herself uses CCl as a ploy to delay the inquiry. In case there is no such reasons then pendacy of disciplinary proceedgs is certainly not a reaosn to deny leave, particulary when no exigency of service existed as Principal (who is leave sanctioning authroity in normal course) did not face any administrative hurdle in granting leave.  In case Principal was feeling manpower problem she could have refused the leave in the first instance which Princiapl did not. 

There is nothing new that departments invent ways to harass perosn reinstated by court order and amongst all other Govt employees teachers are most helpless being as a class collectively ignorant about the rule.

As far as suspension option of the department is concerned, it is not clear that what are the charges and whether suspension would have been justified.  In view of now under Rile 10(7), suspension is more a trouble for employer rather than employee.

Rather suspension could have been beneficial to the employees (if continued beyond three months) she would have got 75% of DA+GP+BP witout pplying for leave with obligation to attend no duty except being presnet during inquiry.

It will be hard for the queriest to understand that a department which has terminated her without inquiry is expected to be short of experienced perosn and even if they conduct inquriy they are bound to commit procedural error and her participation in the inquiry alongiwth a sesoned Defence Asstt will create further grounds to challange if any penalty is granted.