When a government employee, such as a Postal Assistant (PA), is on medical leave, there can be confusion about the proper procedure for submitting a second medical certificate (MC), especially if the employee has moved away from their headquarters (HQ) due to illness. Below, i will try to explain different perspectives on this matter based on the existing rules and precedents.
1. Submission of Second Medical Certificate in Continuation of the First One
In a situation where an employee is continuing their medical leave and submits a second medical certificate from outside the headquarters, the general rule is that permission is not required to submit the second MC. This is because the second MC is treated as a continuation of the earlier medical leave, which has already been granted. Since the leave is medical in nature, it’s considered a legitimate absence, and the employee is entitled to remain on leave until they are fit to resume duty.(Nowadays in the hands of DH/Competent authority)
2. Submitting MC After Proceeding on Leave and Leaving HQ
Another case arises when an employee has proceeded on leave and subsequently leaves the headquarters to receive medical treatment elsewhere. The employee may submit a medical certificate from the new location, but this situation is more nuanced. In such cases, the leave sanctioning authority may request clarification or a second medical opinion to ensure the legitimacy of the illness and the necessity of leaving the headquarters. The rules do not automatically allow the employee to submit a second MC without scrutiny, especially if the official left the HQ without prior permission.
3. Extended Medical Leave Treated as Dies Non
If an employee extends their medical leave without proper permission, such as failing to submit a valid MC from a Authorized medical practitioner, the leave may be treated as “dies non.” Dies non means the period of absence will not count toward qualifying service for purposes like the MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme)/ Promotion e.t.c. Therefore, any medical leave, including extended periods, must be properly supported by valid medical certificates and, where necessary, a second opinion or additional verification.
4. Sanctioning Medical Leave and the Role of the DH
When an employee submits a medical certificate, the leave sanctioning authority (Designated Head or DH) has two alternatives:
- To sanction the leave as per the certificate.
- To seek a second medical opinion if there is doubt about the legitimacy of the claim.
If the leave sanctioning authority does not request a second opinion, they cannot impose “dies non.” The DH lacks the medical expertise to independently judge the validity of the medical claim without appropriate medical verification. Therefore, an employee cannot be marked as “dies non” without clear medical evidence supporting their unfitness to resume duty.
As per Rule 61 of the Manual, Volume III, employees are entitled to take leave if they are physically or mentally unfit for duty. If an employee does not take leave when required, and claims illness, it is their responsibility to ensure proper medical documentation is provided. Otherwise, their absence may be questioned.
“Under order of the government of India no employee is, under any circumstances whatever, to be retained in active employment when he is physically or mentally unfit for the proper discharge of his duty. when a government servant is in bad health and unable to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner, it is is his business to apply for and obtain leave. If he does not go on leave , and neglects his duty , the excuse, if put forward, that he was in bad health, will not be accepted. In appropriate cases, the employee may be sent for medical examination for adjusting his fitness to continue in service in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services(Medical examination) Rules, 1957 reproduced in F.Rs. & S.Rs. Vol-II “
5. Explanation for Leaving the HQ Due to Illness
There are circumstances where an employee may need to leave their HQ due to illness. In such cases, if the employee is forced to leave (such as being unable to travel back to HQ due to severe health conditions), they should provide a detailed explanation. This could include the fact that the employee’s family had to intervene and bring them to their native place for treatment, even though the employee was initially unwilling to leave HQ. In such cases, the leave sanctioning authority may consider these facts before granting leave, taking into account the employee’s situation.
6. Appeal Process and Protection of Employee Rights
If an employee faces penalties or is subjected to dies non without proper verification, they may appeal the decision. The DPS (Department of Personnel and Training) can be approached to review the case, especially if the decision to mark “dies non” was made without consulting a second medical opinion. The leave sanctioning authority is required to follow the appropriate procedure and can only act within their discretion when clear rules have been followed. In the absence of a second medical opinion, the DH cannot legally conclude whether the employee was truly unfit for work.
As per Rule 61, it’s also the employee’s right to ensure their health is evaluated and properly documented. The sanctioning authority must rely on professional medical opinions, and in cases of doubt, they must seek a second opinion rather than unilaterally making decisions that could adversely affect the employee’s service record.
To sum up, a PA official can submit a second medical certificate from outside the HQ if the leave is medical in nature and continues from a prior certified leave. However, permission to leave the HQ should have been obtained in advance unless the employee’s departure was a compulsion due to health reasons. Any decision to treat the employee’s leave as “dies non” should be based on verified medical evidence and, where necessary, a second medical opinion. The employee also has the right to appeal decisions made by the leave sanctioning authority, especially if proper procedures were not followed.