CAT Directs Railway To Grant Doctor Study Leave For 3-Year Critical Care DM Course, Subject To Rules

The applicant, a Senior Divisional Medical Officer and DNB-qualified anaesthetist at ICF Railway Hospital, obtained admission to a DM in Critical Care Medicine for 2026–2029 and sought study leave.

His request was rejected by an order dated 31 August 2026.

The applicant challenged the rejection, arguing, among other things, that it was unsupported by reasons and inconsistent with the treatment of a colleague who had received study leave for a different super-specialty course.

The respondents opposed the application, citing the applicant’s importance as the hospital’s only regular anaesthetist, administrative and patient-care requirements, and the applicable leave rules.

The Tribunal considered whether the refusal was consistent with the governing rules and the requirements of a reasoned exercise of discretion.

Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 permits study leave, subject to the exigencies of public service and the prescribed conditions; the relevant provisions require consideration of whether the proposed study serves public interest and improves the medical officer’s efficiency or benefits the department.

Rule 51 prescribes limits on the duration of study leave, subject to applicable exceptions and instructions.

The Tribunal recognised that grant of study leave is discretionary, but held that the discretion must be exercised judiciously, under the applicable rules, and on relevant considerations.

It also applied the principle that an administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons stated in it and cannot be supported by new grounds introduced later in pleadings.

In support, it referred to Union of India v. T. Anantha Jothi (Madras High Court), Rohit Kumar v. Secretary, Office of the Lt. Governor of Delhi (Supreme Court), and Pankaj Chandel v. State of H.P. (Himachal Pradesh High Court), particularly on reasoned consideration of study-leave requests under the applicable rules.

The impugned order gave no adequate reasons for rejecting the request and did not show that the authority had considered the requirements of Rules 50 and 51 or the relevant circumstances of the applicant’s case.

Although the respondents relied on a shortage of anaesthetists and the applicant’s importance to hospital services, those reasons appeared only in the reply statement and not in the rejection order; they could not therefore cure its deficiencies.

The Tribunal accepted that the authority had discretion to refuse study leave, but held that the discretion had to be exercised on relevant considerations and through a reasoned decision.

The failure to demonstrate such consideration rendered the rejection unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s request and grant the necessary study leave and NOC, subject to fulfilment of the applicable rules and conditions, including execution of the requisite bond, within 15 days of receiving a copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.