Absence due to bona fide medical illness supported by contemporaneous records does not constitute willful misconduct.

The petitioner, a 1996 batch Bihar Administrative Service officer, was transferred to Katihar in 2021. Suffering from a long-standing psychosomatic disorder, he had previously availed four years of extraordinary leave for treatment at AIIMS and Medanta.

In April 2023, after being granted four days of casual leave, his health deteriorated; he sought extensions via email, enclosing medical prescriptions advising bed rest.

The State treated his absence as "unauthorized misconduct".

Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.01.2025 and departmental proceedings were initiated on 19.08.2025.

The petitioner challenged the suspension, the charge memo, and the initiation of proceedings, while also seeking consideration for induction into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

1. Whether the petitioner’s absence from duty, supported by contemporaneous medical records of a bona fide illness, constitutes "willful" misconduct justifying disciplinary action.

2. Whether the continued suspension of the petitioner for over fifteen months is legally sustainable under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules and Supreme Court mandates.

The Court primarily applied the principle from Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, which establishes that "unauthorized absence" does not amount to misconduct unless it is proved to be "willful" rather than due to compelling circumstances like illness.

The Court relied on Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank, holding that disciplinary authorities cannot disbelieve medical certificates from reputable institutions like AIIMS without valid evidence of forgery.

The Court invoked Rule 180(b) of the Bihar Service Code, which allows post-facto regularization of leave.

The Court applied the time-limit mandates for suspension set in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IPS.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s illness was not in dispute, as the State’s counter-affidavit admitted it did not view the illness as a "pretence".

Applying Krushnakant B. Parmar, the Court reasoned that since the absence was caused by a documented medical condition (psychosomatic disorder) and communicated regularly with prescriptions, it lacked the element of "willfulness" necessary to constitute misconduct under Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976.

The Court dismissed the State's argument regarding the "prescribed format" of leave applications as a mere procedural irregularity that cannot defeat substantive rights during a genuine medical crisis.

The Court found the suspension, which exceeded fifteen months, to be in violation of the three-month threshold for review established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, especially since the departmental proceedings were initiated mechanically without addressing the petitioner's medical explanations.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order (23.01.2025), the charge memo (27.12.2023), and the initiation of departmental proceedings (19.08.2025).

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

The UPSC and State authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner's induction into the IAS cadre afresh, uninfluenced by the quashed penalties, in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.