The Delhi government told this to a bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal, which was hearing a plea seeking action against the bureaucrats who went on mass leave to protest the suspension of the two officers on December 29, 2015.
"The records do not conclude that IAS officers and DANICS officers had resorted to any illegal action by way of availing casual leave. It is apparent that the officers had availed casual leave in their individual capacity.
He also informed the bench that on December 31, 2015, the leave taken by many officers was sanctioned by respective competent authority and under no circumstances, the grant of leave was denied or curtailed by any authority.
Taking note of the Delhi government's submission, the court disposed of the public interest litigation (PIL) on the ground that the grievance raised by the petitioner stood satisfied.
Seventy IAS officers had also gone on half-day leave that day reportedly in solidarity with the agitators.
The Union Home Ministry had termed the suspension by the Delhi government as null and void.
The plea by one Indu Prakash Singh had said the Supreme Court had held that "public servants do not entertain legal right to strike" and therefore the act was "illegal".
However, the AAP government's department in its affidavit filed early this year had said "At no point of time, any case of unauthorised absence from duty was reported. Action could have been taken by the respondent (government) only if there was any violation of conduct rules."
The Delhi government in its affidavit had also turned down the contention of the petitioner that two lakh employees went on strike, saying it was "a figment of his imagination and far from reality".
The petitioner had said that mass leave by the officers "should be deemed as break in service".
"The inaction on the part of the government sends a wrong message to the citizens and reinforces the public perception that India is democratic only in form and in reality different standards apply to the governors and the governed," the plea had stated.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
