Dismissed¶13

Sharmila v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/16853/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deemed resignation; Rule 12(2) CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 and proviso thereto; unauthorized absence since 31.01.2007; Extraordinary Leave; MCD teacher; rejoining duty; Office Order dated 27.01.2023; show cause notices dated 23.10.2009 and 22.10.2025; legal notice dated 06.02.2020; CCS (CCA) Rules; prematurity and maintainability of writ petition; CAT Principal Bench O.A. No.4140/2024; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Office Order dated 27.01.2023 relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to her case; in any event, such Office Order is subject to the prevalent and guiding CCS (CCA) Rules applicable to the petitioner. ¶8

Sharmila Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty in terms of the Office Order dated 27.01.2023, notwithstanding the departmental action directed by the impugned order. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is premature, and any challenge to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2025 by way of the petition is not maintainable, the notice having been received but not responded to by the petitioner.

¶11

Key takeaways

No infirmity was found in the Tribunal's directions requiring the respondents to consider the petitioner's huge period of absence from duty in accordance with law.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.; oral judgment by Navin Chawla, J.) dismissed W.P.(C) 16853/2025 filed by Sharmila challenging (i) the order dated 09.10.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.4140/2024, which had quashed the respondents' stand that she fell under deemed resignation under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and had directed a fresh show cause notice under the proviso thereto, and (ii) the consequential Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2025. Held: (a) the Office Order dated 27.01.2023 (under which an employee/teacher reporting back after absence without sanction is to be allowed to join duty) did not apply, as the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 31.01.2007 when her Extraordinary Leave ended, a show cause notice dated 23.10.2009 had been issued and replied, and a legal notice was sent only on 06.02.2020; in any event the Office Order is subject to the CCS (CCA) Rules; (b) the petition was premature and the challenge to the notice dated 22.10.2025, which remained unanswered, was not maintainable; and (c) no infirmity was found in the Tribunal's directions. Petition and pending applications dismissed.

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 05.12.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 16853/2025 SHARMILA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Samarth Luthra, Adv. (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Ms.Namrata Mukim, SC with Ms.Niharika Singh and Ms.Sakshi Saxena, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CM APPL. 69246/2025

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

CM APPL. 69245/2025

¶14

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.

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The Show Cause Notice is taken on record.

¶16

W.P.(C) 16853/2025 & CM APPLs. 69247-48/2025

¶17

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

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16853/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 17:32:59

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

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:

¶22

“11. In view of what has been detailed hereinabove, the OA is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶23

(i) The stand of the respondents that the applicant is fallen under the category of deemed resignation as per Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 since 12.09.2010 is quashed and set aside.

¶24

(ii) A show cause notice shall be issued to the applicant by the respondents, in view of proviso to Rule 12(2) of CCS (Leave) Rules 1972, to give a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to explain the reasons for her absence from the duty within a period of thirty days from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall submit her reply to the said Show Cause Notice before the respondents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Show Cause Notice.

¶26

(iv) The respondent Authority shall issue a reasoned and speaking order as per Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of said reply of the applicant in this regard.

¶27

(v) The respondent authority shall also take a conscious decision on the basis of their administrative prudence on an application dated 28.12.2023 submitted by the applicant to allow her to join duty to the post in light of the office order dated 27.01.2023 issued by the MCD. This decision should also be taken within a period of thirty days from the date of the decision taken under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

¶28

(vi) Both the respondents and the applicant are directed to adhere to the time lines, as indicated above.”

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16853/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 17:32:59

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16853/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 17:32:59

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶42

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶43

DECEMBER 5, 2025 /ns/ik

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16853/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 17:32:59

¶46

Page 4 of 4

Sharmila v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors. Vs Akshika and Ors.

Bala Rani Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nikhil Yadav Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Anand and Company Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Ex. Major General M.S. Jaswal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Atul Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Ex. Major General Ms Jaswal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravi Prakash Mehrotra Vs Delhi Development Authority through the Vice Chairman & Anr.

Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors. Vs Akshika and Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs N Mohan Krishna

Awanish Chandra Mishra Vs Delhi High Court through Its Registrar General and Anr.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through Its Commissioner Vs Smt. Sudarshan Rana

Govt of NCT of Delhi Ors. & Ors. Vs Nishu Panwar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi