Failure to timely process medical leave applications precludes disciplinary penalties for unauthorized absence.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer (Tele) in the N.F. Railway, submitted a leave application on 22.06.2022 for the period of 29.07.2022 to 19.08.2022 to seek medical treatment for himself and his family at specialized hospitals in Tamil Nadu

The applicant proceeded on leave on the alleged oral assurance that his leave would be sanctioned, as online medical appointments were pre-fixed

Upon returning, he was informed the leave was not sanctioned, and a minor penalty charge sheet was issued on 24.08.2022 for unauthorized absence

On 12.09.2022, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of "withholding of privilege passes for the year 2023"

The applicant challenged the penalty orders and the refusal to regularize his leave

1. Whether the disciplinary action and the resulting penalty for unauthorized absence were legally sustainable when the respondents failed to decide on the leave application within the prescribed timeframes

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the regularization of leave and payment of leave salary for the 22-day period of absence

The court adjudicated the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act

Respondents' internal circulars governing the disposal of Leave on Average Pay (LAP) and Maternity Leave, which mandate that orders on leave applications must be passed within seven working days

principles of administrative equity, holding that an employee should not be penalized for disciplinary lapses or procedural delays caused by the administration

The Tribunal observed that although the applicant submitted his request on 22.06.2022, the respondents failed to pass any order—either of sanction or rejection—within the mandatory seven-day period

The respondents only passed an order on 09.09.2022, approximately two and a half months later, and provided no explanation for this delay

The court found the applicant’s claim of being orally asked to proceed on leave highly probable, especially given the necessity of attending pre-fixed medical appointments

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents were not justified in issuing a minor penalty charge sheet when the administrative failure lay with the officer responsible for the timely disposal of the leave application

the court determined that the penalty was illegal as the applicant was penalized for a situation arising from the respondents' own procedural negligence

The court held that the penalty was unsustainable and directed the respondents to: (i) make payment to the applicant in lieu of the withheld Privilege Pass for the year 2023; and (ii) regularize the 22-day leave period (29.07.2022 to 19.08.2022) and pay the corresponding leave salary

These directions must be implemented within three months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded