Sanctioned and regularized leave cannot form the basis of a charge sheet for unauthorized absence or habitual absenteeism.

The respondent, a Peon at a Government Boys Senior Secondary School, was issued a charge sheet on December 2, 2012, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for unauthorized absence.

The charges alleged absence from 12.04.2011 to 31.05.2011 and from 23.07.2011 onwards, while also noting he was a "habitual absentee" having previously availed 1230 days of leave.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA), via order dated 01.06.2013, removed the respondent from service, citing the 1200+ days of leave as evidence of lack of devotion to duty.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) subsequently set aside this punishment as disproportionate and remanded the matter to the DA for a lesser penalty.

The Petitioner (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court.

1. Whether leave periods that have been duly sanctioned and regularized by the employer can legally constitute a basis for a charge sheet or disciplinary action.

2. Whether the punishment of removal from service was sustainable when the primary justification relied on regularized leave.

The court applied Rule 14 of the CCS (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, and Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008) 8 SCC 469, which establishes that if periods of absence are duly sanctioned or regularized, they cannot subsequently form the basis of a charge sheet for misconduct.

The High Court found that the petitioner’s counsel admitted the 1230 days of leave previously availed by the respondent were duly sanctioned and regularized.

Following the P.L. Singla precedent, these periods could not be used to justify the charge of habitual absenteeism.

The Court further noted that the DA had prima facie accepted the respondent’s medical explanation for the first period of absence (April to May 2011).

Consequently, the DA’s decision to terminate service was legally unsustainable as it relied heavily on regularized leave as a ground for punishment.

The only surviving portion of the charge was the unauthorized absence from July 23, 2011, to December 2, 2012.

The court reasoned that the DA must reconsider the quantum of punishment based solely on this specific timeframe, excluding the regularized periods.

The Court directed the DA to conduct de novo proceedings limited to the allegation of unauthorized absence for the period 23.07.2011 to 02.12.2012.

The DA was ordered to allow the respondent to submit a supplementary defense and provide a personal hearing, with a final decision to be rendered within six weeks.

The Court reiterated the Tribunal's holding that the final punishment must be lesser than dismissal, removal, or cessation of service.