Allahabad High Court
RAM NARESH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The court held that the lack of a C.M.O. countersignature does not invalidate a medically certified leave for the period actually covered by the hospital admission, but it does not protect the petitioner for the subsequent period of alleged unauthorized absence.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, sought to quash an order that denied his medical leave, salary for 86 days, and imposed a fine, alleging that his medical certificates were improperly rejected because they lacked the Chief Medical Officer's countersignature. He had been on casual leave and subsequently hospitalized from 10 August to 4 November 2014, with a fitness certificate indicating he was fit to resume duties from 22 August 2014. The department, relying on the absence of the C.M.O. countersignature, treated the period after 21 August as unauthorized leave and denied pay, imposing a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Inspector General and then to the Inspector General, both of which dismissed his appeals on the same ground. The High Court examined whether the lack of a C.M.O. countersignature alone justified the denial of leave and salary for the entire period. It held that the petitioner was entitled to medical leave and pay for the period covered by the certified hospital admission (10‑21 August 2014) but found no illegality in treating the remaining days (22 August‑4 November 2014) as unauthorized absence. Consequently, the petition was partially allowed, granting leave and salary for the first period while upholding the disciplinary action for the later period.
Issues considered
- The validity of rejecting a medical leave certificate solely because it lacks the Chief Medical Officer's countersignature.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the entire period of hospitalization despite the alleged procedural defect.
- Whether the penalty of one month's salary can be imposed for alleged unauthorized absence.
Subjects
- medical leave
- unauthorized absence
- police service disciplinary action
- salary denial
- Rule 46 Financial Handbook
- fitness certificate
- countersignature
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 24934 of 2018
Ram Naresh Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyam Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.49)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard, Sri Amod Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Sri Shyam
Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishal Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the
order dated 15.01.2015 whereby the medical leave of the petitioner was
not sanctioned and consequently, the salary for the aforesaid period was
denied and further a penalty of one month's salary has been imposed upon
the petitioner. He has also challenged the order dated 15.10.2015 and
18.01.2018 whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner
were dismissed respectively.
3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working as
Constable in UP Police Department. While he was posted at Police
Station- Maudaha, District Hamirpur, he went on casual leave on
07.08.2014 for three days. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he went
to Kanpur for his treatment, and after the medical examination, he was
admitted at Madhulok Hospital for three days. Since the petitioner could
not get relief, he got discharged from Madhulok Hospital and thereafter
he got admitted at Abha Nursing Home from 10.08.2014 till 04.11.2014.
After his release from the hospital and grant of fitness certificate by the
doctors, the petitioner approached the department and joined the services.
Later on, show-cause notice dated 06.07.2015 was issued to the petitioner
for his unauthorized absence from 11.08.2014 to 04.11.2014. On the basis
WRIA No. 24934 of 2018
2
of the aforesaid enquiry report dated 22.03.2015 further show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted the
detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice along with all medical
documents in support of his medical illness, admission in the hospitals as
mentioned above and his discharge and fitness certificate. The Enquiry
Officer discarded the medical certificates as the fitness certificate was not
counter-signed by the Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.) concerned and
concluded that the petitioner was absent from 11.08.2014 till 04.11.2014
unauthorisedly. Thereafter vide order dated 21.08.2015, the
Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur has disapproved the medical leave
and directed no salary to be paid to the petitioner for the aforesaid 86 days
on the principles of "no work no pay", and simultaneously by a separate
order of the same date the punishment of fine equivalent to one month's
salary was awarded.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred his statutory appeal before
the Deputy Inspector General of Police against the aforesaid order dated
21.08.2015. Vide order dated 18.10.2015, the appeal of the petitioner was
dismissed on the ground that the medical certificate submitted by the
petitioner was not countersigned by the C.M.O. Thereafter, the petitioner
has filed the revision before the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad
Zone, Allahabad, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated
18.01.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his medical documents
with regard to his illness and admission in the private hospital during the
said period has been discarded only on the ground that the same was not
countersigned by the C.M.O. and consequently the impugned orders have
been passed by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon Rule 46 of Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook, submits that the
countersign of the C.M.O. could be obtained by the department also. In
the instant petition as well, learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed
the medical certificate whereby the petitioner herein was admitted as
indoor patient from 10.08.2014 till 21.08.2014 and as per the certificate
issued, he was declared fit to join his duties w.e.f. 22.08.2014. From the
other medical records as submitted by the petitioner, there is no document
with regard to any further treatment except one one prescription of
WRIA No. 24934 of 2018
3
treatment by Dr. Vikas Shukla on 22.11.2014, which is not relevant for
the period of the absence of the petitioner., The petitioner has failed to
explain the unauthorized leave beyond 21.08.2014 till 04.11.2014.
6. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is partially allowed.
7. It is directed that the petitioner shall be granted medical leave for the
period from 10.08.2014 till 21.08.2014 and shall be paid accordingly.
However, for rest of the period from 22.08.14 till 04.11.2014, this Court
does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed against the
petitioner, which is the case of unauthorised leave on the part of the
petitioner.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
April 17, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…