Naresh Pal Arora vs Union Of India & Ors.

This O.A. has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant for quashing the impugned order No. 31 of 2015 dated 30.6.2015 revoking the duly sanctioned EL/HPL and for further direction to pay the entire salary for the leave period from 6.2.2014 to 22.3.2015.

The facts in brief are that the applicant had joined the services on 29.1.1980 and has been compulsorily retired. Applicant received a memorandum dated 22.5.2015 on 15.6.2015,annexing the charge sheet with three articles of charges. Applicant applied for Earned leave /HPS for the period 6.2.2014 to 20.3.2015. The leaves were duly sanctioned by the competent authority vide order dated 15.5.2015 which was illegally revoked vide order dated 30.6.2015. Applicant has claimed leave salary for the period 6.2.2014 to 20.3.2015 vide letter dated 6.6.2015 and 28.8.2015.

Counter Affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, through which it is stated that applicant has concealed the material fact that he has already raised an industrial dispute on the same matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Allahabad which is still pending .Thus, till the final outcome of the said dispute, instant O.A. is pre-mature. It is further stated that the dispute pertains to the year 2014 and the present O.A. has been filed in the year 2016. It is further submitted that due to departmental proceedings pending against the applicant, applicant has been compulsorily retied w.e.f 28.10.2015 as a consequence of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.10.2015. It is further stated that as per rule 7(2) of CCS (Leave) Rules, the sanctioning authority is empowered to refuse and revoke the leave.

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.K Pandey and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that leaves were sanctioned by S.P.Rao, Director I/c SOR, Varanasi and revoked by the same person which is illegal and without jurisdiction because he has no authority to revoke the leave. Hence the conduct of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for applicant also argued that the leaves were granted on15.5.2015 and the charge sheet was issued on 22.5.2015, meaning thereby when the leaves were granted no disciplinary proceedings was started against the applicant and on that basis revoking the leave is against the rules.

Shri P.K Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that leaves were granted to the applicant vide order dated 15.5.2015 without considering the charge sheet issued by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.5.2015. It is also argued that Rule 7(2) of CCS (Leave) Rules, empowered the sanctioning authority to revoke the leave, hence there is no illegality in the same.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have} gone through the entire record.

Rule 7 of Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 1972 is reproduced below:-

From perusal of the record, it is clear that when the leaves were granted no charge sheet was in existence against the applicant and no disciplinary proceedings was pending against him. Leaves were cancelled by the same authority who had sanctioned the leave vide order dated 30.6.2015 on the ground that the leave was granted without considering the issuance of charge sheet. No exigencies of public service has been shown in the impugned order. The leaves were cancelled without giving any show cause notice to the applicant and without giving any opportunity to the applicant, which is against the Principles of Natural Justice. When on that date, charge sheet was not issued to the applicant, how he can know about the issuance of charge sheet on that date i.e. on 15.5.2015. Competent authority has rightly sanctioned the leave on 15.5.2015 because on that date no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant. Punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to the applicant on 28.10.2015 after five month of sanctioning of leave. Therefore, court is of the view that leaves were rightly sanctioned by the department on 15.5.2015 because till 15.5.2015, applicant’s services stood devoid of any infirmity, thus revocation of sanctioned leave is arbitrary exercise of vested right, hence O.A. is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.6.2015 is quashed. Respondents are directed to pay the salary for the leave period Central Administrative Tribunal^{i.e. from 6.2.2014 to 22.3.2015 to the applicant within a period of 2} months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.