Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.12.2025
SHARMILA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Samarth Luthra, Adv. (through VC)
Through: Ms.Namrata Mukim, SC
Ms.Sakshi Saxena, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 69245/2025
2. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking permission to bring on record the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2025 issued by the respondents.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The Show Cause Notice is taken on record. W.P.(C) 16853/2025 & CM APPLs. 69247-48/2025
4. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.4140/2024 titled Sharmila v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein with the following directions:
5. Also challenged in the petition is the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2025 issued by the respondents by invoking Rule 12(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 in pursuance of the said Impugned Order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal did not issue a direction for the respondents to allow the petitioner to re-join the duties as mandated in the Office Order dated 27.01.2023. He submits that the said Office Order stipulates that in cases where the employee/teacher has proceeded on leave without information or prior sanction but reports back for duty, such teacher/employee of the education department must be allowed to join duty without any delay and in case it is so warranted, appropriate departmental action may be initiated thereafter. He submits that, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner to join back the duty notwithstanding the departmental action that has been directed by the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty since 31.01.2007, i.e., from the date her Extraordinary Leave ended. Not only that, thereafter the respondents also issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2009 to her seeking an explanation qua her absence from the said date, which, upon receipt, is claimed by her to have been replied by her vide response dated 05.11.2009. As such, the Office Order dated 27.01.2023 sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable. Even otherwise, the said Office Order is subject to prevalent and guiding CCS (CCA) Rules as applicable to the petitioner.
9. The facts involved also disclose that the petitioner sent a Legal Notice only on 06.02.2020 enquiring about her status of employment as also seeking to re-join to the respondents.
10. Lastly, it is not in dispute that the respondents have in compliance of the impugned order also issued a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2025 to the petitioner, which, though has been received, but has not been responded to till date by the petitioner.
11. In view thereof, the present petition is premature and any challenge to the Notice dated 22.10.2025 by way of the present petition, per se, is also not maintainable.
12. Though the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order finds that the case of deemed resignation as set up by the respondents cannot be accepted, it has issued the above directions to consider the huge period of absence from duty of the petitioner in accordance with law. We find no infirmity in the said directions of the learned Tribunal.
13. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same along with the pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 5, 2025/ns/ik