“Absence During National Lockdown Cannot Be Construed as Willful Misconduct”: Kerala High Court Quashes Railway Employee’s Compulsory Retirement over Pandemic-Period Absence
Isabella Mariam
The Kerala High Court has set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a railway employee for alleged unauthorized absence during the COVID-19 national lockdown. The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that “non-explanation of three days of absence cannot be that fatal” and that “there was hardly any willful absence at the instance of the applicant-petitioner”. The Court quashed both the original penalty dated 21 January 2021 and a subsequent punishment dated 16 February 2023, ordering reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner, Nitheesh K., a former Technician-III at the Central Workshop, Golden Rock, Tiruchirappalli, Southern Railway, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 19 December 2022, which had upheld a disciplinary penalty of compulsory retirement on the allegation of unauthorized absence for 148.5 days between 19 March 2020 and 14 August 2020.
According to the petitioner, he was sanctioned medical leave from 16 March 2020 to 18 March 2020, which was later extended up to 21 March 2020. On 22 March 2020, a nationwide curfew was declared, followed by a national lockdown. The petitioner remained in his hometown in Kerala due to travel restrictions and alleged lack of public transport. He submitted a representation dated 15 September 2020 requesting regularization of the absence, citing Office Memoranda dated 28 July 2020 and 1 March 2021 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which provided for regularization of absence during the pandemic.
The request was denied. On 19 October 2020, a memorandum of charges was issued, alleging unauthorized absence from 19 March 2020 to 14 August 2020. An inquiry was conducted, and by order dated 21 January 2021, the petitioner was compulsorily retired. The appellate and revisional authorities rejected the petitioner’s challenges to the penalty.
The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in OA No. 591 of 2021. The Tribunal observed that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge but upheld the finding of unauthorized absence and directed the imposition of a lesser penalty. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, a fresh penalty was imposed on 16 February 2023, reducing the petitioner to the bottommost seniority in the time scale of Assistant (Workshop) Grade for 48 months, with pay fixed at ₹18,000.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging both the Tribunal’s reasoning and the substituted punishment.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his absence was involuntary and due to circumstances beyond his control, including the national lockdown, quarantine directives, and workshop closure. It was argued that similarly situated employees were not penalized and that DoPT circulars protected government servants from penal consequences for inability to join duty during the lockdown period.
The respondents, represented by Central Government Counsel, contended that the petitioner had failed to offer any explanation for the days immediately preceding the lockdown and maintained that the disciplinary process was fair. It was submitted that “unexplained absence of a Government employee is a serious indiscipline and cannot be pardoned” though it was conceded that the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive.
The Court examined the relevant facts, including the sanctioned leave from 16 March 2020 to 21 March 2020, the onset of the national lockdown on 24 March 2020, and the petitioner’s travel to Tiruchirappalli on 31 July 2020 under a valid pass. It was recorded that the petitioner was quarantined from 31 July 2020 to 14 August 2020, as per medical advice.
The Court referred to the Office Memoranda dated 28 July 2020 and 1 March 2021 issued by the DoPT, which provided that “Government servants who were on leave prior to the issuance of lockdown with effect from 25.3.2020 and the leave ended during the lockdown period, deemed to have joined duty from the date of expiry of leave, if intimation of duty due to non-availability of public transport/flights has been given by the Government servant to the office or in case of leave on medical grounds, subject to production of medical/fitness certificate.”
The Bench noted that the closure of the workshop from 20 March 2020 to 2 June 2020 had not been denied by the respondents. It held that “non-explanation of three days of absence cannot be that fatal considering the Office Memoranda dated 1.3.2021 and 28.7.2020.”
Addressing the imposition of the substituted penalty, the Court found that “the punishment amounted to taking away the valuable right of service of almost seven years as punishment amounted to withholding of the increment with cumulative effect.”
The Court further recorded that “the applicant-petitioner had reported to the officer concerned in the workshop situated at Thiruchirapally, Tamilnadu after travelling a distance of 400 km during the Covid pandemic but as per the document on record was advised to undergo quarantine.”
Rejecting the disciplinary authority’s reasoning, the Court held that “there was hardly any willful absence at the instance of the applicant-petitioner leading to such serious punishment even after the directions of the Tribunal.”
The Court concluded that the findings of the Tribunal and the punishment imposed under the revised order were not legally sustainable. It recorded: “The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal as well as the disciplinary authority of having not explained the absence of 22nd, 23rd and 24th of March 2020 is wholly unjustified.”
The High Court quashed both the original order dated 21 January 2021 imposing compulsory retirement and the subsequent order dated 16 February 2023 imposing other punishment. The Court ordered that the petitioner “be reinstated with all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Martin G. Thottan, Advocate; Varghese John, Advocate
For the Respondents: R. V. Sreejith, Central Government Counsel
Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16819
Case Number: OP (CAT) No. 32 of 2023
Bench: Justice Amit Rawal, Justice K. V. Jayakumar
[Read/Download order]
