After the sanction of leave, it is not permissible to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment for absence from duty during the sanctioned leave period.

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order issued in G.O.(D)No.863, dated 16.7.1996 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Medical Officer in Government Primary Health Centre, Edapalli, Nilgiris District, was issued with a show cause notice stating that on 8.5.1995 at 4.00 p.m., when the Secretary to the Government came for inspection, the petitioner was not on duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.6.1995 and stated that on 8.5.1995 at about 12.00 noon, his health condition being not alright, he applied for leave to the In-charge Medical Officer and left the office at 1.00 p.m. and the said leave was also sanctioned by the competent authority. A charge memo was issued by the second respondent on 4.12.1995 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the explanation of the petitioner having not been accepted, the impugned order was passed imposing the punishment stopping the petitioners increment for one year without cumulative effect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a document to show that the petitioners request for the leave was reasonable and the Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Edapalli on 17.1.1996 certified that petitioners service is fully satisfactory and the leave applied by the petitioner was for a genuine reason. Learned counsel further submitted that the leave was also sanctioned and the petitioner was also paid salary for the said date.

4. Learned Government advocate pointing out the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that when the Secretary, Health Department was visiting the hospital, the petitioner was not available in the office and therefore, the show cause notice was issued and the explanation of the petitioner being not satisfactory disciplinary action was taken under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, pursuant to which the impugned order of punishment was imposed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government advocate for the respondents.

6. The point in issue is, whether the respondents are entitled to take disciplinary action after sanction of leave for which the petitioner applied.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for leave and the same was also sanctioned and salary for the said date was also paid. A similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reported in AT. Orlanto v. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Rubber Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Orlanto v. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Rubber Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Orlanto v. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Rubber Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 2000 WLR 848, wherein this Court set aside the order of dismissal from service imposed against, a teacher on the ground that after sanctioning of medical leave, it is not open to the department to issue charge memo, continue the disciplinary proceedings and punish the teacher. The learned single Judge in Paras. 15 of the judgment held as under:

“75. It is unfortunate that having passed an order on 13.3.1995 accepting her case and regularising those periods, in the counter affidavit, the very same officer has stated that either “there is no question of petitioners absence being regularised by sanctioning of leave on loss of pay, and in fact the entire period of absence was unauthorised absence”. The said statement is directly contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the very same officer in Na.Ka.No. 4911/89 Ka, dated 13.3.1995.”

The said judgment was rendered following the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in G.Papaiah v. Asst. Director, Medical Services G.Papaiah v. Asst. Director, Medical Services G.Papaiah v. Asst. Director, Medical Services AIR 1996 AP 75. Further in Paras. 16 the learned Judge held as under:

“16.