Partly allowed¶6

Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2026WRIA/24934/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical leave; unauthorized absence; UP Police constable; fitness certificate not counter-signed by C.M.O.; 'no work no pay'; withholding of salary for 86 days; fine of one month's salary; Rule 46 of Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook; departmental enquiry; statutory appeal before DIG; revision before IGP Allahabad Zone; writ petition partly allowed; leave with pay confined to 10.08.2014-21.08.2014. Case: WRIT - A No. - 24934 of 2018, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Anish Kumar Gupta, J., decision date as printed April 17, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Medical leave sanctioned for 10.08.2014 to 21.08.2014 with corresponding payment; denial of leave and salary for 22.08.2014 to 04.11.2014 upheld. ¶6

Ram Naresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 24934 of 2018

Ram Naresh Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shyam Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

(Sl.No.49)

¶11

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

WRIA No. 24934 of 2018

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

WRIA No. 24934 of 2018

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

In such view of the matter, the instant petition is partially allowed.

¶24

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.

¶25

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶26

April 17, 2026 Ashish Pd.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Goyal vs Sandeep Paper Mills Private Limited and 4 Others

Babu Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jamuna Prasad Vs Director General of Police Pac and Others

Kamla Devi vs Canara Bank and 2 Others

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India and 2 Others