Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40248-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9422 of 2023 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Rathi Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratan Deep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Pati Tiwari Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. This petition has been filed by the State challenging an order passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim petition No.837 of 2022 allowing the claim petition of the respondent. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that respondent was employed as a Sub Inspector in UP Police. He was posted at Police Station- Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar. On 3rd March, 2020, the respondent was found absent and ultimately, he reported for joining on 6.8.2020. There was thus an unauthorised absence from duty on the part of the respondent to the extent of 157 days. 3. Records reveal that disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent and a censure entry has been awarded to him. For the period of absence of 157 days, salary has been denied to the respondent on the principles of 'no work, no pay'. Thus aggrieved, the respondent approached the Tribunal. 4. Before the authorities and also before the Tribunal, the respondent took a plea that he had fallen sick and was under treatment at the Government Hospital at Bulandshahar. Various documents including medical prescriptions etc. were placed on record. The respondent also informed the authorities that he had duly intimated about his illness to the higher authorities. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondent to treat the period of 157 days as sanctioned medical leave instead of denying him salary for such period. 5. The Tribunal has examined the matter and has found that the petitioner's explanation with regard to furnishing of information to the employer about his illness as well as his treatment at the District Hospital at Bulandshahar is not disputed. The disciplinary authority while passing the order has otherwise not taken note of petitioner's explanation. The disciplinary authority has merely come to the conclusion that the absence of respondent from duty was unauthorized. 6. The Tribunal has observed that unless the absence from duty was found to be willful or deliberate, it was not open for the employer-petitioner to conclude that the absence from duty was without any justification so as to deny salary for such period. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has taken us through the materials on record of the present writ including the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal. The fact that petitioner was receiving medical treatment from the District Hospital at Bulandshahar remains undisputed. 8. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon para 381 and 382 of the Police Regulations, which only requires that applicants for medical leave must apprise the Superintendent of Police of their intention to apply for a medical certificate. It also requires that treatment must be obtained from the local Government Hospital. In paragraph-9, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent got his treatment from B.B.D. Government Hospital at Bulandshahar. It is also observed that the information of his ailment was given to the higher officers. Medical certificates to this effect along with CMO certificate of District-Bulandshahar have also been submitted to the higher authorities. The fact regarding ailment of the petitioner and submitting of his medical certificates have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit/written statement. Paragraph-9 of the order of the Tribunal is extracted herein after: "9. From the perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that under these provisions, the petitioner got his treatment from B.B.D. Government Hospital, Bulandshahar. The information regarding his ailment was also iven to the higher officers. Medical certificates to this effect along with CMO's certificate of District Bulandshahar have been submitted to the higher officers. The facts regarding ailment of the petitioner and submitting of his medical certificates have not been denied by the respondents in their CA/WS." 9. Though, the State has challenged the order of the Tribunal, but the findings of the Tribunal contained in para-9 are not effectively denied. Except for vague allegations, the assertions made by the Tribunal have not been controverted. 10. In such circumstances, we find no illegality or perversity in the adjudication of the Tribunal, which may require this Court to interfere in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The direction of the Tribunal to the employer to consider sanctioning of medical leave to petitioner for 157 days appears to be a reasonable view in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Minor punishment has otherwise been imposed upon the respondent. 11. In such view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. 12. The petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad