IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4431 of 2010 1. KRISHNA SINGH S/O LATE MAHESHWAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE - DUMRA , P.S - BELSAND, DISTRICT - SITAMARHI PRESENTLY POSED AS CONSTABLE NO. 452 G.R.P. ON KATIHAR RAILWAY STATION , P.S - KATIHAR (TOWN) , DISTRICT - KATIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL (POLICE) BIHAR, PATNA 3. I.G.(GOVERNMENT RAIL POLICE) BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT RAIL POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RAIL) KATIHAR 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ,RAIL KATIHAR 7. OM PRAKASH RAM , LEAVE A.S.I, G.R.P., KATIHAR RAILWAY STATION ----------- 2. 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Constable in the Government Railway Police is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2009, sanctioning him a total of 40 days of earned leave only and deducting salary for 110 days, directing the latter period to be adjusted against extraordinary leave. Learned counsel submits that while on duty as a train escort party, the petitioner suffered an accident on 29.3.2009 at the Katihar Railway Station leading to fracture of his left arm and injuries on his jaw and teeth. He was advised rest. His treatment required further time and he therefore sent applications for extension of leave. After he was declared fit for duty, he 2 joined on 30.8.2009, satisfied that he was under treatment and in pursuance of the leave application sent by him by Registered post, the respondents have released his full salary from the months of March, 2009 to October, 2009. Allegations have been made of a subsequent mala fide exercise in passing of the impugned order. Counsel for the State submits that it is the own case of the petitioner that he was sanctioned 20 days leave earlier for treatment. The impugned order dated 28.10.2009 itself manifest from its recitals that the petitioner was given a hearing and after such hearing the authorities in their discretion thought it proper to grant him extended leave in view of the nature of the injuries by another period of 20 days only making a total of 40 days leave. In the nature of the injuries and of the materials that may have been placed by the petitioner during the hearing, the authorities did not consider it prudent to grant him 110 days leave. Once the authorities have exercised their discretion in the matter, and their shall be a presumption of application of mind in view of the hearing granted to the petitioner, this Court may not interfere in the matter. The petitioner suffered the accident on 29.3.2009. He was sanctioned 20 days leave from 3 31.3.2009. This has been extended by another 20 days. The authorities were therefore satisfied that the nature of the injuries called for a treatment period of 40 days. Thereafter whatever be the materials that were placed by the petitioner during the hearing did not appeal to them. From the fresh representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.11.2009, it is apparent that he had sent applications for extension of leave after the first 20 days and subsequently by registered post. An application sent by registered post for grant of leave does not tantamount to sanction of leave. Unless there is a formal order sanctioning leave, the period of such absence may fall in the category of unauthorized absence. But if the employee puts forward a claim of a ground for the absence, that is a matter to be considered by the authorities appropriately and either accepted or rejected. Withholding of salary for 110 days undoubtedly visits the petitioner with civil consequences. If the authorities were not satisfied with the reasons given by the petitioner he may be entitled to no relief. But this satisfaction is not an absolute satisfaction, and is to be guided by reasons. The fact that salary may have been paid to him from March, 2009 to October, 2009 may not be considered decisive at this stage. It is a matter to be examined by the 4 respondents themselves of the circumstances under which the salary came to be paid after a sanction of the leave or without formal sanction of the leave. If the petitioner gave an explanation for the 110 days, that explanation had either to be accepted or rejected by giving of reasons. The respondents could not withhold a decision on that aspect after granting him a hearing and then visit the petitioner with consequences without telling him the reasons. If the reasons given by the petitioner for extended absence was not acceptable, the order must spell out the grounds that is but a facet of the principles of natural justice. The order dated 16.10.2009 in so far as it gives finality to the non-sanctioned of leave for 110 days is therefore set aside to that extent only. The matter is remanded to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)