Medical evidence insufficient to justify prolonged unauthorized absence or establish entitlement to salary.

The applicant was appointed as a Conservancy Safaiwala in March 2001 and posted at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani.

He claimed that schizophrenia prevented him from attending duty from October 2011 and sought permission to resume work and payment of salary and consequential benefits.

The respondents alleged repeated unauthorised absence, including 1,507 days between 2003 and 30 September 2011, and disputed whether the medical documents established incapacity throughout the later absence.

Following an earlier direction to decide his representation, the respondents rejected his request by order dated 30 May 2022. He challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the respondents acted illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting the applicant’s request to resume duty after his prolonged absence

2. Whether the applicant established a right to salary and consequential benefits for the disputed period of absence

Under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 19 provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

An employee’s absence cannot automatically be treated as duty, nor does subsequent production of medical documents by itself establish entitlement to salary for the entire period; leave, pay and service status must be determined under the applicable rules, including Fundamental Rule 54-B where relevant.

In judicial review of disciplinary matters, the Tribunal ordinarily reviews the legality of the decision-making process rather than reappreciating evidence or substituting its own findings for those of the competent authority, as explained in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not produced sufficient reliable material to displace the respondents’ record of repeated absence before October 2011; his asserted illness beginning in that month did not explain the earlier absences.

The medical documents also did not satisfactorily establish incapacity throughout the subsequent prolonged period.

While recognising the seriousness of schizophrenia, the Tribunal held that sympathy alone could not justify salary for years of absence or an unconditional direction to resume duty.

It found no sufficient basis to interfere with the respondents’ decision, noting that the earlier direction required only a decision on the representation and did not confer an automatic right to reinstatement or monetary benefits.

It clarified that the competent authority may independently determine the applicant’s service status, address any pending disciplinary proceedings and examine admissible statutory dues in accordance with the applicable rules.

No order as to costs was made.