The Kerala High Court has clarified the scope of Rule 32(6) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, holding that periods of unauthorised absence cannot be regularised as study leave after disciplinary proceedings have resulted in a penalty. The Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting extraordinary leave for higher studies to an ESIC officer whose study leave application was rejected and who had faced disciplinary action for unauthorised absence.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The respondent, Dr. Pretty C.J., was working as an Insurance Medical Officer Grade-II at ESIC Model and Superspeciality Hospital, Asramam, Kollam. On 31.08.2013, she applied for study leave to pursue a two-year PG Diploma course. Her application was forwarded with a 'recommended' remark from the Controlling Officer, and she joined the course on the same day.
Key Facts
- The respondent's study leave application dated 31.08.2013 was rejected by Annexure A10 memo dated 01.12.2014, which informed her that her absence from duty from 31.08.2013 would be treated as unauthorised.
- Despite this, she continued her studies and completed the course by 02.03.2018.
- Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her, culminating in a penalty order dated 14.11.2019 imposing stoppage of three increments for three years.
- On 02.12.2019, she submitted a representation seeking regularisation of her absence as extraordinary leave for study purposes.
- The competent authority, by order dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure A1), regularised her absence as extraordinary leave for personal purpose, not for study.
Procedural History
- 09.05.2023: Respondent filed Original Application (OA No.180/00212/2023) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, seeking:
- Quashing of Annexure A1 order dated 12.05.2020.
- Declaration that her absence from 31.08.2013 to 30.10.2015 and 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2018 (excluding 17.01.2018 and 18.01.2018) be treated as extraordinary leave for higher studies.
- Consequential benefits, including reckoning the period for pension, increments, and promotions.
- Declaration entitling her to promotion to Chief Medical Officer and payment of postgraduate allowance from 18.02.2016 with 12% interest.
- 22.08.2025: Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the OA, directing regularisation of the period as extraordinary leave for study purposes with all consequential benefits.
- 15.07.2026: Present Original Petition (O.P.(CAT) No. 82/2026) filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the Tribunal's order.
- 21.07.2026: High Court delivered the judgment under analysis.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners (ESIC and its officials)
- Argued that the OA was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as it was filed more than one year after the order under challenge (12.05.2020).
- Contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by granting study leave when the respondent's study leave application was rejected and disciplinary proceedings had resulted in a penalty.
- Relied on Rule 32(6) as the sole route for regularisation of unauthorised absence post-disciplinary action.
- Cited R. Nagaraj (Dead) through Lrs. and Another v. Rajmani and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 762] to argue that courts must suo motu consider limitation even if not pleaded.
For the Respondent (Dr. Pretty C.J.)
- Argued that her representation dated 02.12.2019 sought regularisation of her study period and should have been considered under Rule 32(2)(e) for study leave.
- Contended that the Tribunal correctly held that the competent authority erred in regularising her absence as personal leave instead of study leave.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 32(6) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, permits regularisation of unauthorised absence as extraordinary leave for study purposes after disciplinary proceedings have resulted in a penalty, or whether such regularisation must be considered under Rule 32(2)(e).
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners argued that:
- The respondent's study leave application was rejected, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated for unauthorised absence, resulting in a penalty.
- Rule 32(6) is the only provision under which unauthorised absence can be regularised post-disciplinary action, as it is not subject to the conditions in Rule 32(1) to (5).
- The respondent's representation dated 02.12.2019 was a request for regularisation of unauthorised absence, not a fresh application for study leave, and therefore could only be considered under Rule 32(6).
- The Tribunal erred in granting study leave without considering the previous rejection of her study leave application and the disciplinary penalty.
- The OA was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
For the Respondent/Applicant
The respondent argued that:
- Her representation dated 02.12.2019 sought regularisation of her study period and should have been considered under Rule 32(2)(e).
- The competent authority erred in regularising her absence as personal leave instead of study leave.
- The Tribunal correctly held that the competent authority's order was unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and noted the following:
- Rule 32(6) provides that the competent authority may commute retrospectively periods of absence without leave into extraordinary leave. This provision is not subject to the conditions in Rule 32(1) to (5).
- Rule 32(2)(e) permits grant of extraordinary leave for up to 24 months for prosecuting studies certified to be in the public interest, but only if the government servant has completed three years' continuous service and applies before taking the leave.
- The respondent's study leave application was rejected, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated for unauthorised absence, resulting in a penalty of stoppage of three increments for three years.
- Her representation dated 02.12.2019 sought regularisation of her absence as extraordinary leave for study purposes, but this was not a fresh application for study leave under Rule 32(2)(e). Instead, it was a retrospective request to regularise unauthorised absence after disciplinary action.
The Court observed:
"It cannot be disputed that an application for regularisation is a retrospective request to excuse or formalize a period, where an employee was absent from duty without prior permission. But, a request for extraordinary leave under sub-Rules (1) to (5) is required to be submitted before taking the leave..."
The Court also relied on the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which states:
"Regularization of unauthorized absence for pension purpose is to be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules. Only in cases where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the grounds adduced for unauthorized absence are justified, the leave of the kind applied for and due and admissible may be granted to him under the CCS (Leave) Rules."
The Court held that the respondent's case did not satisfy the conditions for regularisation under Rule 32(2)(e), as her study leave application was rejected and disciplinary proceedings had resulted in a penalty. Therefore, the competent authority was justified in regularising her absence as extraordinary leave for personal purpose under Rule 32(6).
The Court also held that the OA was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as it was filed more than one year after the order under challenge (12.05.2020).
The Verdict
The Kerala High Court allowed the Original Petition and set aside the order dated 22.08.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.180/00212/2023. The OA stands dismissed. The Court held:
- The respondent's absence from duty from 31.08.2013 to 30.10.2015 and 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2018 (excluding 17.01.2018 and 18.01.2018) cannot be regularised as extraordinary leave for study purposes after disciplinary proceedings resulted in a penalty.
- The competent authority was justified in regularising her absence as extraordinary leave for personal purpose under Rule 32(6).
- The Original Application was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularisation of Unauthorised Absence Is Post-Disciplinary
- Rule 32(6) is the sole route for regularisation of unauthorised absence after disciplinary proceedings have resulted in a penalty.
- Rule 32(2)(e) cannot be invoked for regularisation of unauthorised absence post-disciplinary action, as it requires the employee to apply for study leave before taking the leave.
Study Leave Applications Must Be Timely
- Study leave applications must be submitted before taking the leave. Retrospective requests for study leave after disciplinary action are not maintainable under Rule 32(2)(e).
- Employees must ensure their applications comply with the conditions of the relevant leave rules before proceeding on leave.
Limitation Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts must suo motu consider limitation even if not pleaded by parties, as held in R. Nagaraj (supra).
- Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal must be filed within one year from the date of the order under challenge under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Disciplinary Proceedings Limit Remedies
- Disciplinary penalties restrict the scope of remedies available to employees for regularisation of unauthorised absence.
- Employees facing disciplinary action must carefully consider the implications of penalties on their eligibility for retrospective leave regularisation.
