AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Present writ petition is directed against order dated 19.09.2026 at Annexure-1 of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, passed in O.A. No. 260/00471 of 2026.
The Petitioner approached learned Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction permitting him to sanction non-funded academic leave from 05.10.2026 to 10.10.2026 enabling him to attend the World Health Organization (in short ‘WHO’) Brocher Foundation Workshop on Intersex Surgeries on Infants and Children scheduled from 06.10.2026 to 08.10.2026 at Hermance, Geneva, Switzerland, with further direction to issue NOC for his foreign travel by his employer and consequential reliefs.
The Petitioner is a Professor serving in All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) in the Department of Pediatric Surgeon. He was nominated to attend the international invitation of WHO on the subject stated above. So, he applied for non-funded academic leave from 05.10.2026 to 10.10.2026 through e-HRMS portal on 28.07.2026 to the authority under Opposite Party No.2 and since his application for leave was not processed and considered timely, he approached learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 260/00471 of 2026.
Learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order at Annexure-1, taking note of pendency of the prayer of the Petitioner with the authority, directed the authorities to take a decision on the leave application of the Petitioner on or before 25.09.2026 keeping in view the facts narrated by learned CAT in the impugned order. Against said order of learned CAT, the Petitioner has approached this court in present writ petition and during pendency of the writ petition, Opposite Party No-2 authority vide Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2026 (Annexure 11) rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to grant him the leave on the ground that the Petitioner did not earlier intimate the authority before confirming his participation in the programme and secondly, he did not seek prior permission from the competent authority before applying for visa to Swizerland and concealed such essential information from the authority. It is further stated in the order at Annexure-11 that, as the Petitioner is holding a responsible post, the charge hand over is mandatory on his part for the responsibilities held by him in the Department.
Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India files counter affidavit in Court today on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
It is stated in the counter, while confirming the stand taken in the rejection order at Annexure-11, that, the leave application is not in proper form and none of the colleagues of the Petitioner have expressed their willingness to take charge of his duties in the absence of the Petitioner.
It is relevant to reproduce the contentions of the Opposite Parties made at Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 22 of their counter affidavit. The same are as follows:-
“6.That, it is respectfully submitted that the leave application has to be applied in a proper format as per the leave management system of the e-HRMS portal of AIIMS, which mandates that any faculty e.g. it may be an Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or Additional Professor or Professor has first to request another faculty of his Department to handover the charges during his period absence from the post of duty, subsequently after the procedure is done and the officer who is supposed to take charge agrees to the request of the faculty, who intends/proposes to go on leave has to forward his leave application to the Head of the concerned Department, who reviews the leave request with charge handover details and accordingly considering the same with respect to its urgency recommends to the establishment section for onward processing of such leave request. In the present case the Petitioner though has requested his colleagues but none of his colleagues have expressed their willingness to take charge of, therefore the process could not be proceeded further and it could not be recommended to the head of the department, hence, the question of considering the application by the establishment section doesn't arise and the leave application of the Petitioner could not be process through proper channel. In view of such, the allegation of the Petitioner that the department is sitting over the leave of the application is itself mistaken and intentionally misrepresented before the Hon'ble Court. The Opp. Parties at this juncture emphasizes in this procedural aspect for the reason that the Petitioner is a very senior faculty working in AIIMS since 2018 (before that also he has worked in AIIMS since 2013 to 2015) and though he knows the process very well being a senior faculty member has disgracefully manipulated the same in order to draw a sympathy of this Hon'ble Court to which he is neither legally or procedurally entitled to.
7.That, to elaborate further the process of consideration of leave application by the establishment section, it is necessary to mention here that after the leave application of a faculty having gone through the process as mentioned in paragraph 4 and the leave application is put forth before the establishment section, the dealing hand of the establishment section scrutinizes the application and forwards it to establishment section in charge with comments and the establishment section in charge reviews the application and forwards it to the senior administrative officer/Administrative Officer who after due scrutinization approves and forwards the same to the Dy. Director (Administration), which is further forwarded to Director for final approval.
8.That, in the present case, the allegation of the Petitioner is that on 31.07.2026 and thereafter on 4 occasions, he has wrote to the authorities for sanctioning his leave but the authorities have not considered the same, however the fact remains that the Petitioner has not followed the process as has been deliberated in Para 4 and 5 of the Counter Affidavit rather he has been reciprocated by the HOD on 04.08.2026. The HOD in such letter has advised the Petitioner to follow proper procedure and make a fresh application as per e-HRMS and in case of any problem in cancellation to contact the IT cell. In such letter it has been further mentioned that the Petitioner has not approached any faculty except one Dr. Akash Bihari Pati for reliever. This letter itself shows that neither the HOD nor the Department is against the Petitioner rather the Petitioner has willfully and purposefully skipped the process of sanction of his leave though knowing well about that and has come up before this Hon'ble Court with allegations which are baseless and foisted with malafide intention.
xxx xxx xxx
22.That it is further relevant to mention here that there are 8 No. of Doctor in the post of Assistant, Associate and Additional Professor in the department of Pediatric including the Petitioner, out of the 8 doctors, the junior most one Dr. Abhilash Sahoo, is not been given any independent charge and is attached to the HOD of the department. Further amongst the other doctors available in the department, 4 doctors are on leave as applied vide their application made in the month of June and July by following due process of making application. In such scenario keeping an eye the non following procedure by the Petitioner would be fatal in the interest of functioning of the department.”
Upon hearing both parties, it reveals from the Office Memorandum dated 27th July 2015 produced at Annexure ‘F’ appended to the counter, that it speaks about requirement of taking prior permission for leaving the station / headquarters for going abroad while on leave. Further Perusal of said Office Memorandum at Annexure ‘F’ clearly reveals that, it is desirable on the part of the authority that the request of the Government servant for such permission is to be dealt with expeditiously. For better appreciation, the contents of the said Office Memorandum are extracted below:-
“Subject: Requirement of taking prior permission for leaving station/headquarters for going abroad while on leave.
Undersigned is directed to refer to the Office Memorandum mentioned in the margin and to say that as per the existing instructions, when Government servant applies for leave for going abroad on a private visit, separately prior permission of the Competent authority for such visit is also required. While granting such permission. many factors are required to be kept in view. For example, permission may be denied in the interest of security. Individuals facing investigation/inquiry on serious charges, who may try to evade apprehension by police authorities, or facing the inquiry, may also not be permitted to leave the country. On the other hand, it is also desirable that requests of Government servants for such permission are dealt with expeditiously.
2.Keeping the above in view, it has been decided that requests for permission for private visits abroad may be processed in the attached formats. As clarified vide the OM dated 1st September, 2008, the competent authority for granting permission will be as per instructions issued by the Cadre Authority/ administrative Ministry/ Department. In the absence of any such instructions, it is the leave sanctioning authority. In case due to specific nature of work in a Department, administrative exigencies, or some adverse factors against the Government servant etc., it is not expedient to grant permission to the Government servant, such decision for refusal should not be taken below the level of Head of Department. It may be ensures that the decisions are conveyed to the Government servants within 21 days of receipt of complete application to the competent authority: Any lacunae in the application should be brought to the notice of the Government servant within one week of the receipt of the application. In the event of fallure on the part of the competent authority to communicate its decision to the Government employee concerned with 21 days of receipt of the application, the employee concerned shall be free to assume that permission has been granted to him.
3.If in case some modifications are considered necessary due to specialised nature of work handled by any organisation, changes may be made with the approval of this Department.”
In the case at hand, the Petitioner has admittedly applied for leave on 28.07.2026 through e-HRMS portal and his application for leave was kept pending deliberately till 25.09.2026, which was finally considered pursuant to the direction of learned CAT. The fact as disclosed by the Petitioner that he was the only doctor selected on the subject from India to participate such conference at international level under WHO is not disputed anywhere by the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner has already arranged the tickets and visa for travelling to Switzerland to attend the conference and WHO is bearing the expenses during his entire travel. So, it is not that the institution is burdened with the expenses for travel of the Petitioner to Switzerland. The reasons as demonstrated in the rejection order dated 25.09.2026 at Annexure-11, are seen non-specific and not on serious grounds. It is stated so because in the rejection order, it is stated that the Petitioner was unable to secure the charge handover for six days of his absence.
We are recording our observation here that, it is the duty of competent authority and not the person himself to arrange for suitable substitute to be in-charge of the duties of a temporary absentee employee. The other ground as mentioned in the rejection order that he concealed his application regarding participation in the event at Switzerland and getting visa in his favour, are not seen very serious lapses on the part of the Petitioner to deprive him to attend the conference on this score. The Office Memorandum with regard to permission for leaving the station / headquarter to go abroad is clear in this respect. When the Petitioner being a Professor of Paediatric Surgeon has been invited to attend such conference at the cost of the WHO and for said purpose, he is required to absent for six days from his duties where seven other doctors are available in the Department, we do not see any plausible reason on the part of the authority to refuse him to grant permission to attend the conference at Switzerland on the schedule dates.
At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that in view of the rejection order dated 25.09.2026 at Annexure-11, the Petitioner is required to approach learned CAT again and therefore, the matter should be sent to learned CAT for adjudication. But keeping in mind, the short time period available at the hand of the Petitioner, and the fact that during pendency of the writ petition this refusal order has been issued by the authority, we are not inclined to send the matter back to the learned CAT, but we are inclined to decide the dispute here.
We, accordingly allow the writ petition with direction to the Opposite Parties to grant and sanction necessary leave and permission enabling the Petitioner to attend the conference at Switzerland as per the schedule from 05.10.2026 to 10.10.2026.