New Delhi: No compassion can be shown to a person who neither has the will to work, nor respect for the directions given by authorities, the Delhi High Court has observed while dismissing the plea of a temporary government employee against termination of her service.
The court noted that sufficient opportunity was given to the woman petitioner who appeared to be absenting from work at her “own whims and fancies” without bothering for the consequences.
“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 (woman) but she showed no improvement,” Justice V P Vaish said.
The court’s order came on a petition filed by the woman, appointed as a lower division clerk on temporary basis in a district court here in September 1992. Her service was terminated in 2002 under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
She had approached the high court against the termination claiming that neither was any opportunity of show cause was given to her, nor any reasons for termination conveyed.
Counsel appearing for the office of District and Sessions Judge, the incharge of district court, opposed her plea saying the termination order was legal and valid, as she was a temporary employee and her service was not yet confirmed.
The lawyer also claimed that she was not performing her duties with due diligence as she had regularly absented, even when her leave applications were rejected.
While dismissing the petition, the court referred to the provision of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 under which her service was terminated and observed that it “postulates that no enquiry is to be held prior to passing of termination order in case a temporary government servant is not found suitable for the job.”
“It is pertinent to mention here that even after issuance of repeated memos, the petitioner neither reported 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,” it said.
“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,” it said.