Ref: Memorandum of allegation dated 05.09.2011, issued by the Phek Govt. College Students’ Union to the Commissioner and Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Nagaland, Kohima.
Respected Sir,
To utter surprise I came across the aforesaid news item in your esteemed daily dated 13.11.2011 and in view of which I’m prompted to give my rejoinder to the said allegations. However, with the view to project the clear picture of the issue I would like to recapitulate the brief facts of my service career. That, I had been appointed as Lecturer in Economics department at Dimapur Govt. College vide Notification dated 30.10.2000 and while serving in the said college, virtually having successfully passed in the NPSC I have been appointed at Phek Govt. College vide Notification dated 15.01.2007.
Mention may also be made that at the time when I joint in the present College (Phek Govt. College) the situation and the atmosphere was not congenial as there were often cross-firing between the underground factions and by then I was with my two minor kids age 3 and 1 year respectively inter-alia it was on 27th July 2007, at the time of cross-firing between the factions 27 (twenty-seven) bullets came inside our resident however miraculously due to divine intervention we were narrowly escaped from the icy hand however all our utensils were damaged and more ironically two of my minor sons who were with me at that point of time were terribly shocked consequent upon which it had adversely affected their psycho thus being the situation I even thought of resigning from service however having much deliberations I had made-up my mind to accept the same as challenges and thereby rededicated myself in the service of the department. However, to utter surprise the Complainant without application of judicious mind made blanket allegation against me to the effect that I have been enjoying excessive leave having connived with higher-ups and in view of which I would like to response to the allegations leveled against me in seriatim namely:
EARNED LEAVE:
In this connection in order to avoid misconception I would like to state herein the meaning of earned leave which is prescribed under Service Jurisprudence that every government employee is entitled to avail the earned leave which he/she had earned throughout his/her service therefore it is needless to explain as to why the leave sanctioning authority had granted me the aforesaid leave as prescribed under CCS Leave Rules 1972. However, going by the old saying “Be a Roman while in Rome.” I’m compelled to explain precisely as to how and as to why I have availed the aforementioned Earned Leave.
(a). That with regard to the 20 days earned leave w.e.f. 23rd April to 12th May 2007, I beg to state that, by then my house was under construction further on 27th April 2007, my dear father-in-law was expired after battling for live for almost 2 years thus in the circumstances I have availed my entitled earned leave.
(b). That with regard to 40 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 29th Oct to 8th December 2008, I beg to state that at the time of my 4rd delivery (3rd Surviving Child) my Maternity Leave was already exhausted therefore in view of which I had applied for the above mentioned earned leave and the same has been granted vide Notification dated 11.12.2008.
(c). That with regard to 30 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 6th may to 6th June 2009, I have availed the said leave on account of the fact that my spouse had underwent surgery at Zion Hospital, Dimapur and accordingly the said leave was granted to me vide Notification dated 30.06.2009.
(d). That with regard to 20 days of Earned Leave w.e.f.29th April to 18th may 2010, I humbly states that the said leave was necessitated since I had to Stay in a Prayer House on account of some serious matter.
(e). That with regard to 20 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 19th May to 7th June 2010, the same has been availed as I had to accompany my husband to Guwahati for medical treatment and the same was duly granted vide Notification dated 21.06.2010 and the same was granted vide Notification dated 01.06.2010.
(f). That with regard to allegation made in respect of sub-heads (f) & (g) i.e 22 days and 6 days respectively whereby the complainant had made that I have availed 22 days of earned leave w.e.f. 10th May to 3rd May 2010 and 6 days w.e.f. 01.06.2010 to 06.06.2010, the same were already accounted in the aforementioned sub-heads (d) & (e) commencing from 29th April to 18th May 2010 and 19th May-7th June 2010 respectively. Therefore, in that view of the matter the allegation of availing Earned Leave in Sub-head (f) & (g) does not hold any water and as such the same stands redundant. Further, it also manifests their ulterior motive and ill intention towards me for the reasons best known to them and as such the same is unjustified, unreasonable and illegal.
(g). That, with regard to 90 days of Commuted Leave w.e.f. 6th July to 5th October 2011, I humbly begs to state that, having underwent successively cesarean twice it had an adverse affect on my heath and in view of which my Doctor advised me not to travel long distance and to rest at least few months. Thus, being the situation I have availed the aforesaid aforementioned Commuted Leave of 90 days and the same was duly granted vide Notification dated 21.07.2011.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it clearly transpires that notwithstanding anything once the Leave is granted by the Leave Sanctioning Authorities there is no reason to allege the same as the competent authority had granted the same after having observed all the established norms and procedures. Therefore, there is no scope to point the figure against me for availing my entitled leave after having duly granted by the competent authority. It is also note worthy to state that any Government employee is entitled to avail leave at his/her credit as and when he/she desires provided the authority concerned grants the same and as such it is immaterial, illogical and unreasonable on the part of the complainant to question me for availing my entitled leaves which I have earned through sweats and tears. Further, from the action of the complainant it also tacitly manifests the intrusion of the complainant into the jurisdiction of the competent authority, as a matter of fact it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to sanction the leave to an employee however in the present case having closely examined the action of the complainant it transpires that the authority concerned is liable to consult the complainant before any leave is sanctioned to an employee which is anti-thesis to the CCS Leave Rules 1972.
PERIOD OF ABSENCE.
(a). Thus, for convenient sake I hereby collectively response in respect of the allegations leveled against me is Sub-heads (a) (b) & (c) respectively. In this regard I have the honor to state that my department (Economics) had assigned me only B.A 1st year classes and the same had commenced only from the month of May 2010, therefore in view of which I had started my classes from the month of May 2010, and as such I had neither neglected nor undermined my assigned duty/classes.
(b). That with regard to allegation made in sub-head (d) wherein, I have been alleged to have been remained absent for 1 (one) day, the same can be conveniently taken care-off by explanation made in sub-head (e) of 1 whereby, I have been granted Earned Leave w.e.f. 19th May to 7th June 2010. Therefore, in the light of which I cannot apply for leave simultaneously at the same time when I’m availing Earned leave and as such the allegation is found to be misconceived and rather exposes the confuse state of mind.
(c). That, with regard to allegation made in sub-head (e) wherein I have been alleged to have remained absent for a period of 2 days w.e.f. 14th July to 15 July 2010, and for that I have duly applied for casual leave.
(d). That, with regard to the allegation made in sub-head (f) whereby, I have been alleged to have been absent for a period of 3 days and in this regard I humbly state that on account of my ill-health I left for Dimapur after duly applying causal leave. However, due to prolong treatment I had prayed before the authority concerned to extend the same so as to complete my treatment in to-to. Accordingly, the authority concerned was pleased to extend the same and as such the question of remained absent without consent/leave from the authority concerned does not at all arise and as such the same is liable to be well qualified to be dis-qualified.
(e). That, with regard to the allegation made at sub-head (g) whereby I have been alleged to have been remained absent for a period of 27 days w.e.f. 05.10.2010 to 31.10.2010. In this regard, I would like to state herein that w.e.f. 05.10.2010 to 08.10.2010; our college was conducting Sports’ week, admittedly, on the 2nd day of the Sports’ week having duly consented from the competent authority I left for Dimapur as my 3rd Son was unwell. Subsequently, on completion of the Sports’ week the Puja holidays followed till 18th October 2010. In the meantime I was at an advance stage of pregnancy and in view of which my Doctor advised me not to travel for long distance as the pregnancy was at fragile stage and in view of which I have duly applied for Medical Leave w.e.f. 20.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 and accordingly the same was granted. Therefore, the allegation to the effect that I had remained absent for 27 days in the month of October 2010 doesn’t at all justifies and as such the same is found to be misconceived and misconstrued.
Thus, in view of the above, it clearly transpires that the allegation leveled against me in the aforesaid sub-head from (a) to (g) doesn’t justify on the part of the complainant to make such frivolous allegation against me without application of conscious mind nor going through the records meticulously and as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
CASUAL LEAVE:
That, with regard to the casual leave it the discretions of the head of the institution therefore in that view of the matter I have duly applied to the authority concerned and having duly granted by the authority only I have availed the same. Mention may also be made that not even a solitary day I have missed my classes without proper leave. Therefore, the allegation to the effect that I have availed 42 days without proper leave is far beyond truth and as such the same cannot be sustained.
MEDICAL LEAVE/MATERNITY LEAVE:
In this regard I have the honor to state that altogether I have availed 3 (three) times Maternity Leave against 2 (two) Maternity Leave as per leave Rules 1972. However, it should bear in mind that as per CCS Leave Rules 1972, the Maternity leave is admissible till two surviving child and in this connection it is pertinent to state herein that my first Maternity leave was availed in the year 2002, however unfortunately my first child was not survived and subsequently I have availed two maternity Leave meaning thereby 3 (three) Maternity leave in total that is till two surviving child. Therefore, in view of which I have availed Earned leave instate of Maternity Leave during the delivery of my subsequent child. Mention may also be made that due to inadvertent mistake I have applied for Maternity Leave for forth time. However, as a matter of prescribed Rules the same was rejected by the leave sanctioning authority and in view of which the same was duly adjusted to earned leave and as such the question of availing four time maternity leave doesn’t at all arise as the same has been alleged by the complainant due to lack of knowledge.
Now, with regard to the allegation leveled against me to the effect that having been connivance with some higher authorities I’m enjoying favoritisms under their patronage is far beyond Imagination as a matter of fact I had never ever sought any undue favor from any authority since from my initial appointment and not to speak about patronizing the authority. However, in the instant case the question of favoritisms and patronage is not the issue whereas the underlining meaning is whether the leaves that I have availed are entitled to or not or in other words whether I’m justified for availing my entitled leaves. Beyond that, the allegation to the effect that I’m enjoying undue favoritism under the patronage of some higher authorities does not at all relevant and as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside at threshold as the same is alleged just to tarnish my reputation.
It is also pertinent to state herein that the present commotion and confusion had occasioned due to availing of, my entitled leaves by virtue of being bona-fide govt. servant. It is in fact very painful to face such heartless allegation out of the blue just to inflict stigma in my career. It is further reiterated that I have availed only entitled leaves and not even a singular day I have disregarded my students nor undermined the concerned authority. However, the facts remains that I have duly availed my earned leave/Maternity leave/casual leave having been duly granted by the authority concerned on account of ailment, delivery and difficulties that I/my family gone through and for that reasons the complainant has no reason to threaten the competent authority as it is the prerogative on the part of the authority concerned to sanction the entitled leave to the employee concerned subject to the availability at her/his leave account and in view of which it clearly manifests that the complainant has ulterior motive behind the allegation leveled against me.
NOTIFICATION DATED 1.11.2011:
Now, with regard to my transfer order dated 1.11.2011, it is pertinent to state herein that vide Notification dated 10.09.2008, I was transferred to Dimapur Govt. Collage however for the reasons best known to the authority concerned my transfer order was revoked vide Order dated 25.09.2008. Since then, I have been praying before the authority concerned for my transfer in view of my family’s problems and difficulties. Accordingly, the authority concerned having seen my genuine difficulties and problems I have been transferred out from Phek Govt. College to Fazl Ali Govt. College vide Notification dated 01.11.2011. Meaning thereby it doesn’t mean that the authority concerned had issued the Notification dated 1.11.2011, to hocus-pocus the wild allegations leveled against me however the same was occasioned as a matter of coincident therefore the complainant should not misunderstood the authority concerned for issuing the Notification dated 1.11.2011.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances I fervently appeal to the complainant not to misunderstood the authority concerned for granting the entitled leaves to an employee simultaneously the complainant ought not to have been leveled allegations against for availing the entitled leaves having been duly granted by the leave sanctioning authorities on account of my ailment, delivery and difficulties that I/my family have gone through and in view of which I anticipate a reasonable views from the complainant.
Respected Sir,
To utter surprise I came across the aforesaid news item in your esteemed daily dated 13.11.2011 and in view of which I’m prompted to give my rejoinder to the said allegations. However, with the view to project the clear picture of the issue I would like to recapitulate the brief facts of my service career. That, I had been appointed as Lecturer in Economics department at Dimapur Govt. College vide Notification dated 30.10.2000 and while serving in the said college, virtually having successfully passed in the NPSC I have been appointed at Phek Govt. College vide Notification dated 15.01.2007.
Mention may also be made that at the time when I joint in the present College (Phek Govt. College) the situation and the atmosphere was not congenial as there were often cross-firing between the underground factions and by then I was with my two minor kids age 3 and 1 year respectively inter-alia it was on 27th July 2007, at the time of cross-firing between the factions 27 (twenty-seven) bullets came inside our resident however miraculously due to divine intervention we were narrowly escaped from the icy hand however all our utensils were damaged and more ironically two of my minor sons who were with me at that point of time were terribly shocked consequent upon which it had adversely affected their psycho thus being the situation I even thought of resigning from service however having much deliberations I had made-up my mind to accept the same as challenges and thereby rededicated myself in the service of the department. However, to utter surprise the Complainant without application of judicious mind made blanket allegation against me to the effect that I have been enjoying excessive leave having connived with higher-ups and in view of which I would like to response to the allegations leveled against me in seriatim namely:
EARNED LEAVE:
In this connection in order to avoid misconception I would like to state herein the meaning of earned leave which is prescribed under Service Jurisprudence that every government employee is entitled to avail the earned leave which he/she had earned throughout his/her service therefore it is needless to explain as to why the leave sanctioning authority had granted me the aforesaid leave as prescribed under CCS Leave Rules 1972. However, going by the old saying “Be a Roman while in Rome.” I’m compelled to explain precisely as to how and as to why I have availed the aforementioned Earned Leave.
(a). That with regard to the 20 days earned leave w.e.f. 23rd April to 12th May 2007, I beg to state that, by then my house was under construction further on 27th April 2007, my dear father-in-law was expired after battling for live for almost 2 years thus in the circumstances I have availed my entitled earned leave.
(b). That with regard to 40 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 29th Oct to 8th December 2008, I beg to state that at the time of my 4rd delivery (3rd Surviving Child) my Maternity Leave was already exhausted therefore in view of which I had applied for the above mentioned earned leave and the same has been granted vide Notification dated 11.12.2008.
(c). That with regard to 30 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 6th may to 6th June 2009, I have availed the said leave on account of the fact that my spouse had underwent surgery at Zion Hospital, Dimapur and accordingly the said leave was granted to me vide Notification dated 30.06.2009.
(d). That with regard to 20 days of Earned Leave w.e.f.29th April to 18th may 2010, I humbly states that the said leave was necessitated since I had to Stay in a Prayer House on account of some serious matter.
(e). That with regard to 20 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 19th May to 7th June 2010, the same has been availed as I had to accompany my husband to Guwahati for medical treatment and the same was duly granted vide Notification dated 21.06.2010 and the same was granted vide Notification dated 01.06.2010.
(f). That with regard to allegation made in respect of sub-heads (f) & (g) i.e 22 days and 6 days respectively whereby the complainant had made that I have availed 22 days of earned leave w.e.f. 10th May to 3rd May 2010 and 6 days w.e.f. 01.06.2010 to 06.06.2010, the same were already accounted in the aforementioned sub-heads (d) & (e) commencing from 29th April to 18th May 2010 and 19th May-7th June 2010 respectively. Therefore, in that view of the matter the allegation of availing Earned Leave in Sub-head (f) & (g) does not hold any water and as such the same stands redundant. Further, it also manifests their ulterior motive and ill intention towards me for the reasons best known to them and as such the same is unjustified, unreasonable and illegal.
(g). That, with regard to 90 days of Commuted Leave w.e.f. 6th July to 5th October 2011, I humbly begs to state that, having underwent successively cesarean twice it had an adverse affect on my heath and in view of which my Doctor advised me not to travel long distance and to rest at least few months. Thus, being the situation I have availed the aforesaid aforementioned Commuted Leave of 90 days and the same was duly granted vide Notification dated 21.07.2011.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it clearly transpires that notwithstanding anything once the Leave is granted by the Leave Sanctioning Authorities there is no reason to allege the same as the competent authority had granted the same after having observed all the established norms and procedures. Therefore, there is no scope to point the figure against me for availing my entitled leave after having duly granted by the competent authority. It is also note worthy to state that any Government employee is entitled to avail leave at his/her credit as and when he/she desires provided the authority concerned grants the same and as such it is immaterial, illogical and unreasonable on the part of the complainant to question me for availing my entitled leaves which I have earned through sweats and tears. Further, from the action of the complainant it also tacitly manifests the intrusion of the complainant into the jurisdiction of the competent authority, as a matter of fact it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to sanction the leave to an employee however in the present case having closely examined the action of the complainant it transpires that the authority concerned is liable to consult the complainant before any leave is sanctioned to an employee which is anti-thesis to the CCS Leave Rules 1972.
PERIOD OF ABSENCE.
(a). Thus, for convenient sake I hereby collectively response in respect of the allegations leveled against me is Sub-heads (a) (b) & (c) respectively. In this regard I have the honor to state that my department (Economics) had assigned me only B.A 1st year classes and the same had commenced only from the month of May 2010, therefore in view of which I had started my classes from the month of May 2010, and as such I had neither neglected nor undermined my assigned duty/classes.
(b). That with regard to allegation made in sub-head (d) wherein, I have been alleged to have been remained absent for 1 (one) day, the same can be conveniently taken care-off by explanation made in sub-head (e) of 1 whereby, I have been granted Earned Leave w.e.f. 19th May to 7th June 2010. Therefore, in the light of which I cannot apply for leave simultaneously at the same time when I’m availing Earned leave and as such the allegation is found to be misconceived and rather exposes the confuse state of mind.
(c). That, with regard to allegation made in sub-head (e) wherein I have been alleged to have remained absent for a period of 2 days w.e.f. 14th July to 15 July 2010, and for that I have duly applied for casual leave.
(d). That, with regard to the allegation made in sub-head (f) whereby, I have been alleged to have been absent for a period of 3 days and in this regard I humbly state that on account of my ill-health I left for Dimapur after duly applying causal leave. However, due to prolong treatment I had prayed before the authority concerned to extend the same so as to complete my treatment in to-to. Accordingly, the authority concerned was pleased to extend the same and as such the question of remained absent without consent/leave from the authority concerned does not at all arise and as such the same is liable to be well qualified to be dis-qualified.
(e). That, with regard to the allegation made at sub-head (g) whereby I have been alleged to have been remained absent for a period of 27 days w.e.f. 05.10.2010 to 31.10.2010. In this regard, I would like to state herein that w.e.f. 05.10.2010 to 08.10.2010; our college was conducting Sports’ week, admittedly, on the 2nd day of the Sports’ week having duly consented from the competent authority I left for Dimapur as my 3rd Son was unwell. Subsequently, on completion of the Sports’ week the Puja holidays followed till 18th October 2010. In the meantime I was at an advance stage of pregnancy and in view of which my Doctor advised me not to travel for long distance as the pregnancy was at fragile stage and in view of which I have duly applied for Medical Leave w.e.f. 20.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 and accordingly the same was granted. Therefore, the allegation to the effect that I had remained absent for 27 days in the month of October 2010 doesn’t at all justifies and as such the same is found to be misconceived and misconstrued.
Thus, in view of the above, it clearly transpires that the allegation leveled against me in the aforesaid sub-head from (a) to (g) doesn’t justify on the part of the complainant to make such frivolous allegation against me without application of conscious mind nor going through the records meticulously and as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
CASUAL LEAVE:
That, with regard to the casual leave it the discretions of the head of the institution therefore in that view of the matter I have duly applied to the authority concerned and having duly granted by the authority only I have availed the same. Mention may also be made that not even a solitary day I have missed my classes without proper leave. Therefore, the allegation to the effect that I have availed 42 days without proper leave is far beyond truth and as such the same cannot be sustained.
MEDICAL LEAVE/MATERNITY LEAVE:
In this regard I have the honor to state that altogether I have availed 3 (three) times Maternity Leave against 2 (two) Maternity Leave as per leave Rules 1972. However, it should bear in mind that as per CCS Leave Rules 1972, the Maternity leave is admissible till two surviving child and in this connection it is pertinent to state herein that my first Maternity leave was availed in the year 2002, however unfortunately my first child was not survived and subsequently I have availed two maternity Leave meaning thereby 3 (three) Maternity leave in total that is till two surviving child. Therefore, in view of which I have availed Earned leave instate of Maternity Leave during the delivery of my subsequent child. Mention may also be made that due to inadvertent mistake I have applied for Maternity Leave for forth time. However, as a matter of prescribed Rules the same was rejected by the leave sanctioning authority and in view of which the same was duly adjusted to earned leave and as such the question of availing four time maternity leave doesn’t at all arise as the same has been alleged by the complainant due to lack of knowledge.
Now, with regard to the allegation leveled against me to the effect that having been connivance with some higher authorities I’m enjoying favoritisms under their patronage is far beyond Imagination as a matter of fact I had never ever sought any undue favor from any authority since from my initial appointment and not to speak about patronizing the authority. However, in the instant case the question of favoritisms and patronage is not the issue whereas the underlining meaning is whether the leaves that I have availed are entitled to or not or in other words whether I’m justified for availing my entitled leaves. Beyond that, the allegation to the effect that I’m enjoying undue favoritism under the patronage of some higher authorities does not at all relevant and as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside at threshold as the same is alleged just to tarnish my reputation.
It is also pertinent to state herein that the present commotion and confusion had occasioned due to availing of, my entitled leaves by virtue of being bona-fide govt. servant. It is in fact very painful to face such heartless allegation out of the blue just to inflict stigma in my career. It is further reiterated that I have availed only entitled leaves and not even a singular day I have disregarded my students nor undermined the concerned authority. However, the facts remains that I have duly availed my earned leave/Maternity leave/casual leave having been duly granted by the authority concerned on account of ailment, delivery and difficulties that I/my family gone through and for that reasons the complainant has no reason to threaten the competent authority as it is the prerogative on the part of the authority concerned to sanction the entitled leave to the employee concerned subject to the availability at her/his leave account and in view of which it clearly manifests that the complainant has ulterior motive behind the allegation leveled against me.
NOTIFICATION DATED 1.11.2011:
Now, with regard to my transfer order dated 1.11.2011, it is pertinent to state herein that vide Notification dated 10.09.2008, I was transferred to Dimapur Govt. Collage however for the reasons best known to the authority concerned my transfer order was revoked vide Order dated 25.09.2008. Since then, I have been praying before the authority concerned for my transfer in view of my family’s problems and difficulties. Accordingly, the authority concerned having seen my genuine difficulties and problems I have been transferred out from Phek Govt. College to Fazl Ali Govt. College vide Notification dated 01.11.2011. Meaning thereby it doesn’t mean that the authority concerned had issued the Notification dated 1.11.2011, to hocus-pocus the wild allegations leveled against me however the same was occasioned as a matter of coincident therefore the complainant should not misunderstood the authority concerned for issuing the Notification dated 1.11.2011.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances I fervently appeal to the complainant not to misunderstood the authority concerned for granting the entitled leaves to an employee simultaneously the complainant ought not to have been leveled allegations against for availing the entitled leaves having been duly granted by the leave sanctioning authorities on account of my ailment, delivery and difficulties that I/my family have gone through and in view of which I anticipate a reasonable views from the complainant.
(IMTIKOKLA OZUKUM)
Asst. Prof.
Phek Govt. College, Phek.
