The rule making authority makes provision to the effect that the employee should not leave the Head Qurter without the leave of the immediate officer, or the Department concerned. The justification behind making such rule is that there are certain critical functions to be utilized by employers, or performed by the employees. And therefore, the employer may be requiring the constant presence of the employee for which he is paid. Take an illustration of the technical expert in any power plat,, wireman or a helper. The purpose behind framing such rule is to "meet with emergent nature of the duties" and to avoid the unforeseen circumstances. There must be some emergent nature of the functions expected by the employer in your case, if no disciplinary actions are initiated or contemplated. However, according to me, the rule has to be liberated keeping in mind the Constitutional provisions in appropriate cases, where there are no urgent situations to be attended at any time after the service hours are over.
And when any misconduct is committed by the employee during the course of employment, the employer takes disciplinary actions by placing the employee under suspension. Here, the employer is imposing the condition that the suspended employee should not leave the Head Quarter without the leave or permission of the authority. And sometimes, the employer is imposing the condition to the effect that the employee should remain in Head Quarter during the period of suspension. However, the Honourable the Supreme Court has ruled that if the condition is imposed to remain in a Head Quarter, the employer should give full salary to the employee. The Court interpreted that when the employee is suspended, the contract of employment is temporarily suspended, and therefore, the suspended employee is not bound to carry out all conditions during the period of suspension.