An employee's absence, when supported by medical leave applications, cannot be deemed unauthorized, and double punishment for such absence is impermissible under employment law.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.21143 of 2006 on the file of this Court filed the present Writ Appeal questioning the sustainability of the orders dated 26.10.2024 passed therein by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The Writ Petition was filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuing an appropriate Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the Memo No.CGM/ HRD/DS/AS.III/PO(DC)/A/F.No.54/D.No.1223/06, dated 08.09.2006 of the first respondent by confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.SE/O/GNT/Adm./JAO/C2/D.No.37/06, dated 16.06.2006 (modified vide Memo No.SE/O/GNT/Adm./JAO/C2/D.No.39/06, dated 22.06.2006 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Circular Memo No.DM(Ser.I)/3900-H3/86-3), dated 08.08.1986 and Memo No.DP/DM(Ser)/1228-M(a)1/91, dated 22.01.1997 and also violation of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the impugned memos issued by the first and second respondents, with a direction to the respondents to add one increment by treating the leave period of the petitioner as on duty with full service benefits and to pass such other order or orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. Respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 herein is Respondent No.1 in the writ proceedings.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the writ petition.

Case of the Writ Petitioner:

5(i). The writ petitioner was working as an L.D.C. in the Circle Office, Guntur. He applied for medical leave and sent leave applications through registered post on different dates. In the first instance, he requested medical leave with effect from 02.10.2005 to 21.10.2005, in the second instance from 22.10.2005 to 20.11.2005, in the third instance from 21.11.2005 for 40 days and in the fourth instance from 31.12.2005 to 28.02.2006 on the ground of suffering from infective Hepatitis.

(ii). The leave letter relating to the fourth instance was sent in writing on white paper and the same was sent under certificate of posting, which was neither accepted nor rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner was not referred to any Medical Board on the ground of any suspicion regarding medical grounds.

(iii). However, petitioner was directed to hand over his seat in full shape to Kumari G. Malathi, L.D.C. Hence, he was under impression that the leave was sanctioned to him.

(iv). The petitioner went to the office of the respondent’s with a medical fitness certificate on 13.03.2006 and was asked to submit the leave application in proper proforma. Accordingly, he submitted the same.

(v). Respondent No.3 recommended sanction subject to eligibility. Respondent No.2, in his proceedings dated 24.03.2006, stated that pending finalization of disciplinary action and regularization of period of un-authorized absence, the petitioner was posted at the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Repalle, Guntur District. Accordingly, the petitioner reported at Repalle.

(vi). Respondent No.2 issued Show Cause Notice vide Memo No.SC/O/GNT/Adm./C2/D.No.22/06, dated 10.04.2006 stating that he had come to a provisional conclusion to award the punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect, besides treating the absconding period from 31.12