A subordinate authority cannot override Special Disability Leave sanctioned by the competent appellate authority.

The petitioner, an employee of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (“NLC”), was transferred to National Thermal Power Ltd. (“NTPL”), a joint venture of NLC and TANGEDCO, where NLC’s leave rules continued to apply.

After attending official work at Trichy and Neyveli, the petitioner met with a road accident on 27 June 2010 while returning from Neyveli and underwent treatment at NLC Hospital, Neyveli, and Apollo Hospital, Chennai, until 8 December 2010; he rejoined duty on 9 December 2010 after obtaining a fitness certificate.

The petitioner sought treatment of the 165-day period from 27 June 2010 to 8 December 2010 as Special Disability Leave/Temporary Disablement Leave, contending that the accident occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment.

The second respondent rejected the request by proceedings dated 30 September 2011 and regulated the period as commuted medical leave.

The petitioner appealed to the first respondent, the Chairman and Managing Director of NLC, on 18 June 2012. An internal office note dated 19 June 2012 was approved by the first respondent on 25 June 2012, and the sanction of Special Disability Leave was communicated to NTPL on 29 June 2012.

The respondents subsequently asserted that the appeal had been rejected, and the second respondent communicated that position by proceedings dated 26 July 2013.

Whether the petitioner’s appeal dated 18 June 2012 against the second respondent’s order dated 30 September 2011 had been allowed by the competent appellate authority on 25 June 2012, or had been rejected as claimed by the respondents.

Whether any order rejecting the appeal had been communicated to the petitioner so as to render the decision final and binding.

Whether the second respondent could reject or otherwise nullify the petitioner’s appeal against the second respondent’s own order.

The Court applied the relevant NLC/NTPL leave rules and the principles governing Special Disability Leave/Temporary Disablement Leave under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, under which an employee may claim benefits where disablement results from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

The Court further applied the administrative-law principle that an appeal must be decided by the designated appellate or competent authority, not by the officer whose order is under challenge; an authority cannot effectively sit in appeal over its own decision.

It also applied the principle that an administrative decision must be evidenced by a discernible order of the competent authority and communicated to the affected employee before it can be relied upon as a final rejection.

The Court found that the respondents did not produce any order of the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, despite asserting that the appeal had been rejected.

On the contrary, the record contained an office note dated 19 June 2012 that had been approved by the first respondent on 25 June 2012, followed by the General Manager’s communication dated 29 June 2012 forwarding the sanction of Special Disability Leave to NTPL.

The second respondent’s communication dated 26 July 2013 merely stated that the appeal had been rejected and reproduced reasons, but did not establish that the first respondent had passed such an order or that it had been served on the petitioner.

Further, since the appeal challenged the second respondent’s own order, the second respondent could not validly decide the appeal himself; such a course amounted to the authority sitting in appeal over its own decision.

The Court therefore treated the first respondent’s approval dated 25 June 2012 as the operative appellate decision and held that the original rejection order had merged into that decision.

The proceedings dated 26 July 2013 issued by the second respondent were quashed.

The earlier order dated 30 September 2011 was treated as having merged into the appellate proceedings approved on 25 June 2012 and could no longer be relied upon to deny the claim.

The petitioner’s claim for Special Disability Leave/Temporary Disablement Leave for the period from 27 June 2010 to 8 December 2010 was treated as accepted, and he was held entitled to the benefits attached to that sanction under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.