S K TANDON Vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant of this O.A. has prayed for issue of directions for setting aside the impugned order dated 19th October, 2001 and 13th October, 2001 contained in Annexures No. A-19 and A-21 and further for directing the respondents to pay the sum of Rs. 76,793/- representing the pay and allowances for a period of 78 days wrongfully and illegally deducted from the retirement gratuity of the applicant. It is also prayed that directions be issued to the respondents for setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.5.2001 and 22.6.2001 as contained in Annexure No. A-14 and A-17 regarding treating of the period between 28.5.2001 to 1.6.2001 as dies non.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.

(3.) IN so far as the period of 73 days treated as leave without pay is concerned, the only reason for treating the said period as leave without pay on account of absence from duty is the failure of the applicant to sign the attendance register for these days. The applicant admittedly is a grade G Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400-22,400 and the Director, ITRC admittedly though the administrative head, is also in the same grade. Extracts of various months of the attendance register have been filed on behalf of the applicant and also on behalf or respondents to show that the applicant had not signed the attendance register on various dates between March, 2001 and September, 2001. The extracts for the month of March, 2001 of the attendance register show that the name of the applicant or the name of the Director, ITRC is not shown in the attendance register which prima facie, indicates that neither the director, ITRC nor the applicant was required to put his signature in the attendance register. The names of other staff members who were required to put their signatures in the attendance register figure in the extracts of the attendance register for the month of March, 2001. Further though the period of absence from duty has been worked out between 21.3.2001 and 28.9.2001, it is seen from the extracts of the attendance register that even prior to 21st March, 2001 though the applicant had not signed the attendance register, he had not been treated as absent from duty on any date prior to 21.3.2001. It is also seen from the extracts for the month of March, 2001 that though the attendance register contains a column for arrival and a separate column for departure, the applicant has signed on certain dates in the arrival column only and on certain dates, in the departure column only. The signatures of the applicant in the attendance register are in the form of his initials only. The applicant has not signed the attendance register in both the columns indicating his arrival and departure from the office on any date in the month of March. Besides the extracts of the attendance register from the month of March, 2001 also show that on certain dates, the applicant has put his initials in the attendance register either in the arrival column or in the departure column and on certain others dates, the applicant has not put his initials. On dates, on which the applicant has not put his initials the attendance register has been initialed by the Director, ITRC Sri P.K. Seth. It is interesting to note that on the dates on which the Director, ITRC has put his initials, the applicant has not put his initials in the attendance register whereas on dates on which the initials of the applicant appeared in the attendance register, the initials of the Director, ITRC do not appear. Thus the attendance register for the month of March, 2001 clearly shows that the attendance of the staff whose names appear in the attendance register for the month of March, 2001 was only checked by the Director or the applicant both of whom as stated earlier were in the same grade. As a matter of fact in the remarks column of the attendance register in the month of March, 2001, the Director, ITRC has recorded on 21st March, 2001 that every body should write the time of signature in the attendance register. This also shows that the attendance register was put up to the Director, ITRC for checking and verification. Since the Director has not put his initials, in the register on those dates on which the applicant has put his initial, it follows as a corollary that on these dates, the attendance register was put up for checking and verification of the applicant. The extracts of the attendance register for the months of June, 2001 and July, 2001 also show the same position. Only for the month of January and Feb., 2001, the extracts of the attendance register reveal a slightly different picture in as much as on certain dates, the applicant and the direct both have signed the attendance register but here also it is interesting to note that on certain other dates only the applicant has initialled the attendance register. It is also interesting to note that in January, 2001 and Feb., 2001 whereas the applicant has initialled the register against the departure column the Director ITRC has initialled against the arrival column of the register. Neither the name of the applicant nor the name of the Director figures in the attendance register though the names of other staff members are duly shown in the register. The extracts of the attendance register for the month of April, 2001 and May, 2001 revea! the same picture as the extracts for the month of March, 2001. As already stated above, the extracts of attendance register clearly show that the applicant was not required to record his attendance in the attendance register as a token of his presence in the office in the light of the fact that his name does not figure in the attendance register. He has initialled the attendance register on certain dates and on those dates on which the applicant has not put this initials, the register has been initialled by Director, ITRC.