(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the orders dated 01.10.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent in Lr. NO.E10/ Sa.pa.pi/ TNSTC (Salem)/ 2015 quash the same and also direct the Respondents to sanction leave for the period from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 and also pay the arrears of salary payable for the said period and also the salary due for the period from 29.02.2015 to 24.03.2015.)

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the second respondent, and to direct the respondents to sanction leave for the period from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015, pay the arrears of salary payable for the said period, and disburse the salary due for the period from 29.02.2015 to 24.03.2015.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Driver on 15.02.2008 and regularized with effect from 01.01.2009 in the respondent Corporation. On 23.02.2015, he met with an accident, sustained multiple injuries, and took treatment at PSG Hospital, Coimbatore; MKMC Hospital, Salem; and the Government Hospital, Vembadi Thalam, Salem. He was on medical leave from 23.02.2015 and rejoined duty on 02.07.2015.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he sought leave for 90 days from 23.02.2015 to 26.06.2015 along with medical certificates, but the respondent sanctioned leave only for 64 days from 23.02.2015 to 24.05.2015 and treated the balance of 26 days as absence. He submitted a representation dated 21.07.2015 claiming a leave salary of Rs. 56,900/-. He earlier filed W.P. No. 23509 of 2015, wherein this Court directed the respondent to consider his representation within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 01.10.2015, stating that:

                   (i) Leave was sanctioned from 23.02.2015 to 24.03.2015, and Rs. 15,106/- was paid vide Bill No. 534/15.

                   (ii) Payment for 29.03.2015 to 28.04.2015 was effected through the monthly pay bill.

                   (iii) Leave from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 was not sanctioned, being treated as unauthorized absence, and disciplinary action was initiated, culminating in the punishment of an increment cut for six months without cumulative effect vide order dated 31.07.2015.

4. In the affidavit, it is stated that the period from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 was fully covered by leave letters duly acknowledged by the respondent, along with medical certificates issued by competent doctors. Furthermore, no enquiry was conducted, and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before imposing the punishment, which violates the principles of natural justice. The punishment order was never served on him despite his request dated 28.10.2015.

5. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and that 15 previous punishments were imposed upon him for unauthorized absence, refusal to check reports, damaging vehicles, etc. It is stated that the petitioner unauthorizedly absented himself from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 without prior permission, which constitutes misconduct under Clause 19(i)(f) of the Standing Orders. After observing due formalities, the punishment of an increment postponed for six months without cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 19.09.2015 and communicated through the Branch Manager. Therefore, no leave salary is payable, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the counsel for the respondent and perused the records. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner either in person or through counsel.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met with an accident on 23.02.2015 and produced medical certificates from PSG Hospital, Coimbatore, and Government M.K.C. Hospital, Salem. The leave applications for the period from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 were acknowledged by the respondent branch. This Court finds that the respondent has not conducted any domestic enquiry before imposing the major punishment of stoppage of increment. The issuance of a memo dated 17.07.2015 calling for an explanation and granting only four days' time cannot be construed as a fair enquiry. No enquiry officer was appointed, no witnesses were examined, and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case. Moreover, the punishment order dated 19.09.2015 was not served on the petitioner, and the impugned order dated 01.10.2015 itself referred the punishment. When an absence is supported by medical certificates from competent doctors, the same cannot be treated as unauthorized absence to deny salary. The respondent has already sanctioned 64 days as medical leave, thereby accepting the genuineness of the treatment. The remaining period is merely a continuation of the same treatment.

8. This Court is of the view that rejecting the medical leave from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 and treating the said period as unauthorized absence is legally incorrect, since the petitioner met with a major accident. If the respondent did not accept the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, the only correct course of action was to refer the petitioner to a Medical Board. Instead of referring the petitioner to the Medical Board, the respondent rejected the medical leave and treated the period as unauthorized absence, which is incorrect.

9. In view of the same, this Court is interfering with the impugned order with respect to Clause III. The said Clause III of the impugned order dated 01.10.2015 is set aside. Since the punishment imposed on the basis of the impugned order by treating the period as unauthorized absence vide order dated 19.09.2015 has no legal force.

10. Therefore, the respondents are directed to sanction the leave for the period from 29.04.2015 to 01.07.2015 and to pay the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.