1. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank, filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the second respondent in treating 103 days of ‘sick leave’ as ‘extraordinary leave’ as illegal and arbitrary. He has sought a consequential direction to the respondent bank to deduct 103 days of his absence from the pool of the ‘sick leave’ rather than treating it as extraordinary leave.

2. The petitioner, having been appointed a clerk-cum-typist on 02.05.1977 in the respondent bank, has been working since September 2001 in the first respondent branch as a Special Assistant. Beginning with May 2005 till July 2007, owing to his occasional illness, the petitioner went on sick leave on different spells ranging from four days to 27 days. Having availed himself of 126 days of sick leave, the petitioner was sanctioned by the authorities 103 days leave in the said category.

3. Explaining why the petitioner had to go on sick leave on each occasion, the petitioner has placed on record that on every occasion when he reported back to duty, he submitted leave applications duly supported by medical certificates. Though the leave was duly sanctioned by the competent authority, all of a sudden, in June 2007 the respondent bank did not pay salary to the petitioner without assigning any reason. When the petitioner approached the Branch Manager inquiring about the non-payment of salary, he was served with a letter, dated 30.06.2007, stating that the sick leave granted earlier was treated as unauthorised absence and accordingly no salary was paid.

4. The petitioner, in response to the letter, dated 30.06.2007 issued by the first respondent, submitted a representation/explanation on 27.07.2007 stating that the sick leave was granted after the competent authority had been satisfied of the nature of illness the petitioner had suffered from on different occasions; as such, the question of reopening it by treating the periods of absence as unauthorised is totally unsustainable. When no response was forthcoming from the first respondent, the petitioner was said to have been constrained to submit another representation, dated 31.08.2007 to the second respondent. Later, the second representation too having met the same fate the first representation did, the petitioner once again submitted a representation, dated 25.09.2007 to the third respondent, the General Manager (Operations), Hyderabad. Despite his numerous representations, when the authorities have remained unmoved, the petitioner approached this Court.

5. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel has submitted that once leave was duly sanctioned, the authorities have no power to cancel the sanctioned leave, much less treat it as unauthorised absence. Referring to the regulations governing the employees of the respondent bank, the learned counsel contends that an act of unauthorised absence being a major misconduct, converting properly sanctioned leave to unauthorised absence is fraught with deleterious consequences. Ipso facto, the authorities are obligated to put the petitioner on notice before initiating any such action. The learned counsel has also pointed out that on every occasion he has applied for leave and later got it sanctioned on the strength of the medical certificates he has produced.

6. As the petitioner went on making representations, it is contended, the second respondent issued proceedings, dated 11.10.2007, treating the sick leave for different periods, amounting to 103 days, as extraordinary leave. When the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 22.10.2007, seeking payment of arrears of salary with interest, restoring the sanctioned sick leave, the authorities have once again reaffirmed their stand by issuing proceedings, dated 28.11.2007.

7. To accentuate the treatment meted out to the petitioner by the respondent authorities, the learned counsel has laid stress on the fact that when the petitioner sought voluntary retirement thr