A sanctioned leave cannot be revoked without demonstrated public-service exigency and observance of natural justice.

The applicant, an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation who had joined service on 29 January 1980, applied for Earned Leave/Half Pay Leave for the period from 6 February 2014 to 20/22 March 2015.

The leave was sanctioned by the competent authority on 15 May 2015. Subsequently, a charge-sheet containing three articles of charge was issued to him on 22 May 2015 and served on 15 June 2015.

On 30 June 2015, the authority revoked the sanctioned leave on the ground that it had been granted without considering the charge-sheet.

The applicant challenged the revocation and sought payment of salary for the leave period.

During the pendency of the matter, he was compulsorily retired with effect from 28 October 2015 pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents contended that the applicant had also raised an industrial dispute concerning the matter and that Rule 7(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules empowered the authority to refuse or revoke leave.

Whether the competent authority could revoke the leave sanctioned on 15 May 2015 merely because a charge-sheet was subsequently issued on 22 May 2015.

Whether the revocation of sanctioned leave without notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the applicant was entitled to salary for the relevant leave period.

The Tribunal applied Rule 7(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which permits the competent authority to refuse or revoke leave when the exigencies of public service so require, but does not confer an unrestricted power of revocation.

The exercise of that power must be supported by a demonstrated public-service exigency and must comply with the principles of natural justice where revocation adversely affects an employee’s rights or entitlements.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that an administrative order having adverse civil consequences should not ordinarily be passed without notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that, on 15 May 2015, when the leave was sanctioned, no charge-sheet had been issued and no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the applicant.

The charge-sheet was issued only on 22 May 2015, i.e., after the leave had been sanctioned.

Although Rule 7(2) authorised refusal or revocation of leave in cases of public-service exigency, the impugned order did not identify or establish any such exigency.

The stated reason—that the leave had been sanctioned without considering the charge-sheet—was untenable because the charge-sheet did not exist on the date of sanction.

Further, the leave was revoked without issuing a show-cause notice or affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing, rendering the action contrary to natural justice.

The subsequent compulsory retirement imposed after the sanction of leave could not retrospectively invalidate the earlier lawful sanction.

The Original Application was allowed; the impugned order dated 30 June 2015 was quashed.

The respondents were directed to pay the applicant salary for the leave period from 6 February 2014 to 22 March 2015 within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.