Govt Employees, Police Have No Right To Go On Leave Without Permission, Unauthorised Absence Can't Be Adjusted Later: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee or a police personnel have no right to proceed on leave without prior permission and later seek adjustment of the absence from accumulated leaves.The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal thus rejected a Head Constable's contention that his absence could be adjusted against the available leave...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee or a police personnel have no right to proceed on leave without prior permission and later seek adjustment of the absence from accumulated leaves.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal thus rejected a Head Constable's contention that his absence could be adjusted against the available leave balance, noting,
"In police services or in any other government services, it is not the right of employees or officers to go on leave without permission from the superior authorities and expect the superior authorities to adjust their period of absence from available leaves in the record".
The appellant was appointed a Constable in April 1999 and promoted to Head Constable in 2014. While posted at Police Chownki Pandiwada, he reportedly fell seriously ill on September 23, 2014 and was granted 8 hours' permission to seek medical treatment.
However, the department later treated him as unauthorizedly absent for a prolonged period, first for 197 days between September 2014 and April 2015 and subsequently for 118 days beginning in December 2015.
Departmental proceedings were initiated, and by order of August 10, 2016, he was terminated from service. The period of absence totalling 315 days was treated as dies non under the principle of "no work, no pay".
His departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Police and mercy appeal before the Director General of Police were dismissed. A single judge of the High Court also upheld the termination, prompting the appeal.
The counsel for the appellant argued that his absence was due to illness and not willful. It was further contended that the appellant had submitted his medical documents upon rejoining the duty. It was further asserted that he had over 400 days of leave available, which could have been adjusted.
The counsel for the State argued that the appellant was a habitual absentee who had previously been awarded 30 minor and 2 major penalties, including 14 relating to unauthorised absence. It was submitted that in 6 years of service, he had remained absent for 634 days.
The main contention of the appellant was that he was not absent wilfully, as he became sick. The bench also noted that he became sick and left the police station after making an entry in the daily register, and after returning again, he made an entry in the register. It as contended that he should not have been dismissed from service, as there was no wilful absenteeism.
The court observed that the appellant remained absent for 197 days. The court further noted that even if the appellant was suffering from diseases like TB, the same was not of such a nature that his movements were restricted. Alternatively, his family could have informed the police department about his long absence due to illness.
The bench noted that the appellant failed to respond to the notices by the department. The bench thus concluded that the appellant had committed misconduct which was found established in the Departmental Enquiry. The court thus refused to interfere with the finding recorded in the Departmental Enquiry.
Rejecting the appellant's contention regarding leave adjustment, the bench held,
"As per service rules, it is mandatory for an employee to take leave or permission from the superior officer and thereafter move from working place. It is not acceptable for any police officer to remain absent as per his request and later request for adjustment of leave. If this system is given approval by the court, it would disturb the entire discipline in the police department".
On the question of punishment, the bench found the matter fit for reconsideration. While sustaining the findings of misconduct, it held that the issue of proportionality warranted fresh evaluation.
"The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to impose adequate punishment, keeping in view the observations made and the case laws discussed above", the bench directed.
The appeal was thus partly allowed.
Case Title: Ajay Singh Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh [WA-261-2024]
For Appellant: Advocates Mahendra Pateriya and Vishal Pateriya
For State: Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar