How Should I Handle an Officer's Habit of Unscheduled Leaves and Delayed Applications?

One of the officers working under me is in the habit of not delivering his duties properly and taking frequent unscheduled leaves, citing various personal and health reasons. Upon return from leave, the officer fails to submit leave applications and joining reports on several occasions, totaling around 10 leaves. These leave applications have been pending for nearly three months. Only after a reminder following three months does the officer submit his leave application.

The officer had received a similar warning from the Administration in the previous year for not regularizing leave upon rejoining duty. As the Divisional Head, I have informed the Administrative Officer about this issue. The Administrative Officer has advised issuing a memo.

Since I am in the Central Government, to prevent any possible legal retaliation by the officer due to mistakes in the memo, I seek your guidance on issuing a memo in this situation.

Leave is not a matter of right but is subject to exigencies of service. If somebody is very lax in applying for leave, then a memo could be issued, and it needs to be stressed that in spite of directions many times in the past, it is still seen that leave applications are never submitted on time. Indeed, leave could be refused, and the individual could be marked absent for such absence, which would remain unauthorized. It is necessary to take action in such cases, lest others follow the wrong example.

Our office follows CCS Rules as per the Central Government guidelines.
If a leave request is rejected due to officer's delay in submission, does the officer have any legal recourse to challenge the decision?
Under which Rule of CCS can we justify rejecting such leave to classify it as unauthorized absence?

Rule 7 of CCS Leave Rules

7. Right to leave

(1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right.

(2) When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant.

Using these powers, the leave requested could be refused. Once leave is refused, the absence becomes unauthorized. The aggrieved employee could take up his grievance, but it could be effectively replied to by stating the habit of not timely applying for leave and relying on Rule 7. The legal position is very clear that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and exigencies of service are the prime consideration in the granting/non-grant of leave. Habitual abrupt absence and non-submission of applications even after a reminder amount to dereliction of duty and insubordination.

The contents of the posting suggest that you are scared of this particular employee even though he has been indulging in willful mischief. Why? If the employee has not regularized his absence by applying for leave, as admissible, he is not entitled to the pay for the days/period he has remained absent. Onus rests with him applying for leave, that too, in advance except in the case of casual leave. If he has not applied for leave, no pay needs to be paid for the periods of absence.