Babus at work - no compassion can be shown to a person who has no will to work
IN a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a truant employee.
The lady employee was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on temporary basis on 08th September, 1992. In 2002 her services were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; the main reason could be her frequent absence from duty. The employee approached the High Court of Delhi.
The High Court observed,
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was not performing her duties with due diligence and she was found guilty of taking unauthorized leaves. The petitioner has failed to show that the leaves that were taken by her were sanctioned by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has decided at her own will when to take leave and when to report for duty. It has emerged from the record that the petitioner not once but repeatedly was guilty of taking leaves without sanction and in a situation like the present case the termination order cannot be called as stigmatic.
The petitioner remained absent continuously from duty w.e.f 05.12.2002 (sic) to 11.04.2002 and 01.07.2002 to 11.09.2002 and thereafter from 16.09.2002 to 14.12.2002. Prior to December, 2000 the petitioner had been absenting herself from duty despite the fact that her leave was not sanctioned. The application of the petitioner for earned leave for the period 16.07.2000 to 31.10.2000 was rejected by the authorities. Earlier also, leave for the period 16.07.2000 to 31.07.2000 was rejected. She remained absent virtually for the whole year. Thereafter, also she had remained unauthorisedly absent for considerable period, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that petitioner had performed her duties to the entire satisfaction of the respondents.
It is pertinent to mention here that even after issuance of repeated Memos, the petitioner neither report back to duty nor submitted any satisfactory explanation for her absence, which shows that she was absolutely incorrigible and did not mend her ways despite repeated warnings. In these circumstances, any employer would have taken the same action because it was absolutely clear that the petitioner was not interested in her job. If the petitioner has been terminated, she is to blame herself.
Further, no compassion can be shown to a person who has no will to work and no respect for the directions/ warnings issued by authorities. It is absolutely clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but she showed no improvement. It seems she was absenting at her own whims and fancies without bothering for the consequences.