Deemed resignation for prolonged medical absence cannot bypass disciplinary proceedings; pending voluntary retirement must be accepted.

The applicant, an ex-Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), had served the organisation since 1992 and was directly recruited as Principal in 2003.

She suffered from various medical ailments and remained absent from duty from 3 October 2013, claiming that her absence was supported by medical certificates issued by Government hospitals.

Her last sanctioned Extra Ordinary Leave was from 10 September 2015 to 9 August 2016.

After her transfer to KV SSB Gwaldam in August 2016, she sought modification of the posting on medical and high-altitude hardship grounds but did not join the transferred post.

KVS issued a show-cause notice dated 17 March 2022 proposing to treat her continuous absence exceeding five years as deemed resignation under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

While the proceedings were pending, she submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 21 June 2022, which was forwarded to KVS Headquarters on 8 July 2022.

KVS nevertheless passed an order dated 14 July 2022 treating her as having resigned retrospectively with effect from 3 October 2013.

The applicant’s earlier challenge in O.A. No. 856/2022 was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Vice-Chairman, KVS.

After granting her a personal hearing, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 18 February 2025.

She thereafter filed the present O.A., seeking quashing of the deemed-resignation and appellate orders, acceptance of her voluntary-retirement application, and consequential retirement benefits.

Whether KVS was justified in treating the applicant as having deemed to have resigned under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly when she had submitted medical certificates and had continued to make representations regarding her medical condition and posting.

Whether the deemed-resignation order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and failure to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings for alleged unauthorised absence.

Whether the applicant’s voluntary-retirement application, submitted before the deemed-resignation order was passed, was required to be considered and accepted.

Whether the impugned orders dated 14 July 2022 and 18 February 2025 were liable to be quashed and the applicant granted retirement and pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal considered Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, under which a Government servant who remains continuously absent for more than five years may be treated as having resigned, but held that such a consequence cannot be mechanically imposed where the employee’s intention to abandon service is not established and the relevant procedural safeguards are not followed.

It also considered Rule 20 of the CCS (Leave) Rules and the DoP&T O.M. dated 17 July 2018 concerning leave claimed on medical grounds and reference to competent medical authorities.

The Tribunal relied on S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10567/2024, and the subsequent review decision, for the principles that resignation or abandonment of service must be assessed with reference to the employee’s intention, cannot ordinarily be inferred without adequate evidence, and that fairness and equity must inform the employer’s decision-making.

It further held that alleged unauthorised absence by a regular employee should ordinarily be dealt with through appropriate disciplinary proceedings under the applicable Conduct Rules rather than by an extreme and retrospective declaration of deemed resignation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had completed approximately 23 years of service, had consistently asserted medical incapacity, had submitted medical certificates, and had made representations seeking reconsideration of her transfer and posting.

Although KVS relied on a 2021 Medical Board opinion declaring her fit for duty, the Tribunal held that the respondents did not provide her a proper opportunity after obtaining that medical opinion and did not fairly address the medical material produced by her.

Her conduct—particularly her continued correspondence with KVS and her application for voluntary retirement before the deemed-resignation order—did not conclusively demonstrate an intention to abandon service.

The Tribunal further held that the allegation of unauthorised absence could have been examined through disciplinary proceedings, and that retrospectively terminating her service by invoking deemed resignation, instead of considering her pending voluntary-retirement request, was an excessive and procedurally unfair action.

Accordingly, the deemed-resignation order and the appellate order were found unsustainable.

KVS was directed to accept the applicant’s voluntary-retirement application.

The retirement amount was to be calculated after adjusting all admissible leave standing to her credit against the period of unauthorised absence, and KVS was directed to assess her qualifying service for pension and pass appropriate consequential orders under the applicable Rules.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.