Unauthorized absence from duty treated as break in service under FR 17-A is administrative, not punitive.

The applicant, a Stenographer Grade-II appointed in 1979, was absent from duty during three distinct periods: 20.11.1998 to 08.10.2001, 01.04.2004 to 24.08.2015, and from 19.09.2015 until his superannuation

The applicant claimed these absences were due to serious illness (blood circulation issues and mental instability) and that he had submitted medical certificates

The respondents issued show-cause notices via speed post regarding the unauthorized absence, which the applicant claimed not to have received

Consequently, the respondents passed orders dated 08.02.2016 and 18.03.2016 invoking Rule FR 17-A, treating the periods of absence as "interruption and break in service," thereby rendering him ineligible for pension and gratuity

The applicant challenged these orders as arbitrary and penal

1. Whether the prolonged unauthorized absence of the applicant could be treated as an "interruption or break in service" under FR 17-A without a formal departmental inquiry

2. Whether the impugned orders treating the absence as a service break were punitive/stigmatic in nature or merely administrative

Fundamental Rule (FR) 17-A, which mandates that unauthorized absence by an individual employee shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in service for purposes like leave travel concession and eligibility for examinations, unless otherwise decided by a competent authority

The court further relied on the Supreme Court precedent of State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008), which established that unauthorized absence is an act of indiscipline where the employer may either condone the absence by sanctioning leave or treat it as misconduct

The precedent also clarifies that administrative orders accounting for a period of absence (like dies non) are not necessarily punitive if they do not result in severance of employment

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his decade-long absence was duly sanctioned or regularized by the competent authority

While the applicant pleaded medical grounds, the court noted that mere submission of representations years after the fact does not entitle an employee to continuity of service

The court determined that the respondents had followed the principles of natural justice by issuing show-cause notices via speed post, which are presumed served when not returned

Applying the Dr. P.L. Singla doctrine, the Tribunal reasoned that invoking FR 17-A is an administrative and accounting procedure to regulate service status rather than a major penalty under disciplinary rules

Since the action did not involve dismissal or removal, a full-scale departmental inquiry or formal charge-sheet was not a prerequisite for treating the unauthorized absence as a break in service

The court answered that orders under FR 17-A are administrative, not punitive, and do not suffer from procedural infirmity for lack of a formal inquiry

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and the orders treating the periods of absence as a break in service were upheld