SANJAY KUMAR vs DEFENCE on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) “To set-aside & quash order No: 1720/Stn HQ /30 dated 30- 05- 2022 issued by respondent no 02 in the interest of justice. b) To direct the respondents particularly the respondent no 01 & 03 to allow the applicant to join his duties as conservancy Safai Wala at Station Headquarters Sunderbani besides this, paid all the monetary & consequential benefits for the period of illness & thereafter, till the applicant will be allowed to join his duties which has been rejected by respondent no 02 illegally, unauthorizedly & unlawfully. c) any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit & proper may also be passed in favour of applicant & against the respondents.”

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging order No. 1720/Stn HQ/30 dated 30.05.2022, whereby his request to resume

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

duties as Conservancy Safaiwala at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani, was rejected. The applicant has also sought a direction to the respondents to allow him to rejoin his duties and release salary and other consequential benefits for the period of his absence.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Conservancy Safaiwala at Station Headquarters, Akhnoor, vide appointment order dated 21.03.2001. He joined his duties on 26.03.2001 and was subsequently deployed at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani, on 09.04.2001.

4. According to the applicant, he performed his duties sincerely until October 2011, when he developed a serious mental illness known as schizophrenia. He submits that because of his illness, he was unable to attend his duties or inform his superior officers about his condition. He further submits that after undergoing treatment and recovering from his illness, he approached the respondents with medical documents and requested permission to resume his duties. However, despite repeated requests and representations, he was not allowed to join.

5. The applicant further submits that the respondents issued a show- cause notice dated 16.04.2019, to which he submitted his reply dated 01.05.2019 along with the relevant medical documents. He also

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

approached the authorities through various representations, but no favourable decision was taken.

6. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 296/2022, which was disposed of on 01.04.2022 with a direction to the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide the same within the prescribed period. In compliance with the said direction, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, rejecting the applicant's request. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

7. The respondents have opposed the Original Application by filing their reply. Their main stand is that the applicant was a habitual absentee who repeatedly remained away from duty without obtaining permission or submitting leave applications. According to the official records, the applicant remained absent for a total of 1507 days between 2003 and 30.09.2011. The respondents submit that this period of absence was much before the illness claimed by the applicant to have started in October 2011.

8. The respondents further submit that the applicant again remained absent from duty with effect from 02.10.2011 without obtaining leave or informing the department about the reasons for his absence. They state that several show-cause notices were issued to him between 2007

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

and 2019, but he failed to maintain regular attendance or comply with the required procedure.

9. It is further stated that the applicant submitted medical documents relating to schizophrenia in response to the show-cause notice dated 16.04.2019. The respondents forwarded the medical documents to the concerned medical authorities for verification. According to them, the medical documents were produced after a considerable delay of about eight years and did not satisfactorily establish that the applicant was unable to attend duty throughout the period of absence. The respondents also state that the matter concerning disciplinary action was referred to the higher authorities.

10. The respondents maintain that the applicant cannot claim salary for the period during which he did not perform any duty. They submit that the competent authority examined his request in light of the service record and applicable rules and rejected it by the impugned order dated 30.05.2022. Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

11. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made by the respondents. He maintains that he had not remained absent for 1507 days between 2003 and September 2011 and that he had been paid salary during the relevant period. He further reiterates that his

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

absence after October 2011 was due to a serious medical condition beyond his control. According to him, the respondents failed to appreciate his medical circumstances and wrongly rejected his request to resume duties.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the pleadings and material available on record.

13. The main question before this Tribunal is whether the respondents acted illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting the applicant’s request to resume duties and claim monetary benefits after remaining absent from service for a prolonged period.

14. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed in March 2001 and was posted at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani. The dispute concerns his prolonged absence from duty and the reasons offered by him for such absence.

15. The respondents have specifically stated that the applicant remained absent for a total period of 1507 days between 2003 and 30.09.2011. This is a substantial period of absence spread over several years. The applicant has denied this allegation and has stated that he was performing his duties during the said period. However, the applicant has not placed sufficient reliable material on record to establish that the entire period of absence recorded by the department was incorrect.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

16. The applicant has also argued that he received salary during the relevant period and, therefore, the allegation of absence cannot be accepted. We are unable to agree with this submission. Mere payment of salary, by itself, does not establish that an employee actually attended duty on all the dates in question. Attendance and leave records are relevant for determining whether an employee was present or absent from duty. The applicant has not sufficiently displaced the respondents' specific stand regarding his repeated absence.

17. Another important aspect is that the applicant himself states that he developed schizophrenia in October 2011. Even if his explanation regarding illness from October 2011 is accepted, it does not explain the earlier period of absence of 1507 days between 2003 and September 2011. The respondents’ allegation of repeated absence during those years, therefore, cannot be answered merely by referring to an illness stated to have begun subsequently.

18. We are conscious of the fact that schizophrenia is a serious mental health condition and that a person suffering from such an illness may face genuine difficulties in managing everyday responsibilities, including employment. Such circumstances deserve sympathy, understanding and appropriate treatment by the employer. An

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

employee suffering from a medical condition should not be treated harshly merely because of the illness.

19. At the same time, the Tribunal must decide the matter on the basis of the service record, applicable rules and evidence placed before it. Sympathy alone cannot justify a direction for payment of salary for several years of absence or an unconditional direction to resume duties without examining the service position.

20. In the present case, the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the repeated absence recorded by the respondents before October 2011. With regard to the subsequent period, although medical documents have been relied upon, the respondents have questioned whether those documents sufficiently establish the applicant’s inability to attend duty throughout the prolonged period. The production of medical documents after several years, without satisfactory evidence covering the entire period of absence, does not automatically entitle an employee to have the whole period treated as duty.

21. It is a basic requirement of government service that an employee must attend duty regularly and, when unable to do so, inform the competent authority and obtain leave in accordance with the applicable rules. Where illness genuinely prevents an employee from complying with these requirements, the circumstances must be examined fairly.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

However, an employee cannot claim an unrestricted right to remain absent for years and thereafter demand salary and other benefits for the entire period without establishing entitlement under the rules.

22. In the present case, the respondents have placed reliance on the applicant’s past attendance record, which shows repeated absence over a number of years. The applicant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the earlier period of absence. His subsequent illness, though deserving of sympathy, cannot by itself justify the irregular attendance recorded before October 2011. The prolonged absence, taken together with his earlier service record, supports the respondents’ stand that the applicant was a habitual absentee.

23. We also find that the respondents had issued show-cause notices to the applicant regarding his absence. The applicant admittedly received the notice dated 16.04.2019 and submitted his reply. Thus, it cannot be said that the department never brought the issue of unauthorized absence to his notice. The respondents have also stated that the matter was referred to the higher authorities for disciplinary action. This indicates that the department had taken steps to address the applicant’s continued absence.

24. The applicant has contended that the respondents did not issue any formal order of termination or removal from service and, therefore, he

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

continues to be a government employee. We find that this contention, even if accepted, does not automatically entitle him to salary for the period during which he remained absent or to unconditional permission to resume duties. The question of his service status and the regularization of absence must be governed by the applicable service rules and any lawful proceedings undertaken by the competent authority. The impugned order rejecting his representation cannot, by itself, be treated as an order of removal from service.

25. We have also examined the applicant’s grievance regarding the declaration of the period of absence as non-duty. The respondents have relied upon Fundamental Rule 54-B while dealing with the monetary claim. However, the applicability of any particular provision must be determined according to its scope and the applicant’s actual service status. The period of absence cannot automatically be treated as duty merely because the applicant subsequently submitted medical documents. Equally, any formal decision regarding leave, pay or service status must be taken under the relevant rules. The applicant has not established a legal right to receive full salary and consequential benefits for the entire disputed period.

26. The applicant has further alleged that the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 was passed mechanically and without proper application

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

of mind. We do not find sufficient grounds to accept this contention. The respondents have referred to the applicant’s previous attendance record, the prolonged absence, the medical documents submitted by him and the relevant service requirements. The applicant’s request was rejected principally on the ground that he had remained absent for a long period without proper authorization. Merely because the decision is not in favour of the applicant, it cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is concerned primarily with the legality of the decision-making process and not with reappreciation of the evidence as an appellate authority. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that the Court or Tribunal cannot ordinarily substitute its own findings or punishment for those of the competent disciplinary authority. Similarly, in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of interference with findings recorded in departmental proceedings.

28. It is also important to note that the earlier direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 296/2022 was to examine and decide the applicant’s representation. Such a direction did not confer an automatic right

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

upon the applicant to rejoin duties or receive monetary benefits. The respondents were required to examine his request in accordance with the rules and communicate their decision. The impugned order dated 30.05.2022 was passed pursuant to that direction.

29. We are mindful that loss of employment or income can cause serious hardship to an employee and his family, particularly where the employee has suffered from a prolonged illness. However, the responsibility of maintaining discipline and regular attendance in government service cannot be overlooked. Every employee has a duty to attend work regularly, and the employer is entitled to take lawful action when an employee repeatedly remains absent without permission.

30. The present case is not one of a short period of absence or an isolated instance of failure to obtain leave. The respondents have relied upon a record of repeated absence extending over several years. The applicant has not furnished a satisfactory explanation for the entire period. In such circumstances, this Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to ignore the attendance record and grant the relief sought merely on sympathetic grounds.

31. At the same time, we clarify that our observations regarding the applicant’s absence are confined to deciding the relief claimed in the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

present Original Application. If disciplinary proceedings are pending, the competent authority shall deal with them independently, in accordance with law, after giving the applicant the opportunity required under the applicable rules. Nothing stated in this order shall be treated as a final finding of misconduct in such proceedings.

32. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to establish sufficient grounds for interference with the decision of the respondents rejecting his request for unconditional resumption of duties and payment of monetary benefits for the prolonged period of absence. No case is made out for granting the reliefs prayed for in the present Original Application.

33. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the present Original Application. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1435/2022 is dismissed. The prayer for quashing order No. 1720/Stn HQ/30 dated 30.05.2022 and for directing the respondents to allow the applicant to resume duties with salary and consequential benefits is declined.

34. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the present Original Application shall not prevent the competent authority from dealing with any pending disciplinary proceedings, determining the applicant's service status or examining any admissible statutory dues strictly in

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

accordance with the applicable rules. Any such decision shall be taken independently and shall not be influenced by observations beyond the issues decided in this order.

35. There shall be no order as to costs.

36. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV