Tribunal cannot substitute its discretion for the employer's in granting post-facto sanction for foreign employment.

The Respondent, an Associate Professor at SKUAST-Jammu, applied for permission on October 7, 2024, to seek employment at United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)

Despite no formal permission being granted, she participated in an interview and received an employment offer for the post of Instructor starting January 6, 2025

On December 18, 2024, the University issued a show-cause notice questioning her actions without prior sanction

The Respondent challenged this notice before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu.

The Tribunal quashed the notice and directed the University to grant post-facto sanction for the foreign assignment, citing administrative delay and entitlement under service rules

The University challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court.

1. Whether a Government employee can apply for and accept foreign employment without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority

2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in quashing a show-cause notice and mandating post-facto sanction, thereby interfering with the employer's discretionary administrative powers

The Court applied Article 55-A of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), which regulates foreign assignments via Guidelines in Schedule XIX

It specifically invoked Category (b) of Schedule XIX, which classifies joining a foreign assignment without permission as an infringement of rules punishable by disciplinary action or termination

The Court further relied on Rule 14(b) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which requires resignation before taking non-government employment unless the employer deems the permission "desirable" as an exceptional case

Crucially, the Court applied Rule 10(1) of the J&K Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, which strictly prohibits undertaking any other employment without previous sanction

The Court reasoned that the Tribunal erred by misinterpreting the discretionary nature of Rule 14(b) of the Leave Rules.

The phrase "considered desirable in any exceptional case" grants the employer exclusive subjective judgment, which the Tribunal cannot substitute with its own

The Court found that the Respondent’s actions directly violated Rule 10 of the Conduct Rules, constituting misconduct

It held that while a Tribunal can review administrative actions for illegality or mala fides, it cannot arrogate to itself the power to grant administrative permissions or post-facto sanctions, as these are matters of policy and management

Furthermore, the Court noted that a challenge against a mere show-cause notice is generally premature as the competent authority has yet to finalize the disciplinary process

The Court held that the Respondent had no inherent right to foreign employment without prior sanction and the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction

However, to balance equities, the Court directed the Petitioners to consider the Respondent's application for permission afresh and pass a speaking order within four weeks