Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mitali Thakuria held that the penalty of removal from service imposed on a former railway employee for unauthorized absence of 10 full days and 19 half days was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Court concluded that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, had committed no error in directing the reinstatement of the employee with 50% back wages. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the employer challenging the Tribunal's judgment was dismissed.

The Division Bench found that the disciplinary proceedings were based solely on a specific period of absence without reference to previous proven misconduct, and the charges framed were vague and lacking in specificity. The Court determined that there was no material irregularity in the Tribunal's directive and stated the requirement for precise charges and proportionate punishment. The decision of the Tribunal, reinstating the employee with partial back wages from the date of removal until superannuation, was therefore upheld. The Court found no basis for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and concluded that the penalty of dismissal could not be sustained under the facts established.

Also Read: System Failed Her | Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Protect Victim’s Future | Says ‘Law, Society And Family Did Enough Damage’ | Not A Precedent

The writ petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 040/00410/2015. The CAT had allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent, an ex-Technician Grade III employed under the North East Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), and set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed on him by the Railway authorities.

The respondent was charged with unauthorized absence from duty and was removed from service under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He had been working under SSE/CRS/DBWS, Dibrugarh Workshop, and was alleged to have been irregular in attendance. The departmental authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings and served a memorandum of charges on 04.04.2008 based on a report dated 21.03.2008 submitted by SSE/CRS, which showed that he was absent from duty between 01.01.2008 and 21.03.2008.

It was claimed by the Railways that the respondent was a habitual offender, having been subjected to three previous disciplinary proceedings. Penalties in the form of stoppage of increments were allegedly imposed in 2007. A show-cause notice regarding break in service was also issued in May 2008.

Despite multiple opportunities, it was asserted that the respondent failed to improve and continued to remain absent without proper authorization or valid grounds. Consequently, a departmental inquiry was conducted. The respondent allegedly accepted the charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 27.10.2008, finding the charges proved.

Following the inquiry, a notice imposing penalty (NIP) was issued on 12.12.2008, removing the respondent from service. He appealed this decision to the Appellate Authority, which upheld the penalty on 24.12.2009. A revision petition filed before the General Manager, N.F. Railway, was also rejected on 24.03.2010.

Subsequently, the respondent approached the CAT, Guwahati Bench in 2015, nearly five years after the revisional order. The CAT condoned the delay. It allowed the application on the ground that the punishment imposed was disproportionate and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages.

In the writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, the Railways challenged the CAT's judgment, arguing that the disciplinary process adhered to the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the employee was given full opportunity to defend himself and that his habitual absenteeism posed a serious operational risk.

The petitioners further contended that the respondent had failed to provide acceptable justification for his repeated absences, which were allegedly due to his mother's psychiatric illness. The Railways argued that the claim was unsubstantiated and unsupported by contemporaneous medical documents. The materials submitted to the CAT, according to the petitioners, were produced only after the penalty had been imposed and could not be relied upon.

The petitioners relied on precedents including the Supreme Court decisions in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, and Union of India v. Subrata Nath (Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022), to support their contention that unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct and warrants disciplinary action. They stated that judicial review under Article 226 cannot extend to reappreciating evidence or interfering with punishment where it is not shockingly disproportionate.

In response, the respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural lapses. It was submitted that the charges framed were vague and failed to specify the exact periods of absence. The respondent claimed that the departmental authorities relied solely on a report dated 21.03.2008 showing absence between 01.01.2008 and 21.03.2008 and did not supply all relevant documents to enable him to present an effective defence.

The respondent admitted absence for part of the period but asserted that the same was due to his mother's mental illness. He challenged the proportionality of the penalty, contending that 10 full days of absence and 19 half-days could not justify removal from service. He cited decisions including Anil Gilurkder v. Bilspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank (2011) 14 SCC 379, Surath Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 SC 752), and others stating that charges must be specific and penalties proportionate.

The High Court recorded that "from the Articles of Charges framed against the respondent, it is seen that as per the statement of the Article-I, the attendance report was submitted by SSE/CRS/DBWS on 21.03.2008, which is also annexed along with the petition, and from the leave report, it is seen that the respondent was submitted by DAR only for the period of 01.01.2008 to 21.03.2008 and apart from that, there is no other specific mention about his unauthorized absence from the duty."

The Court noted, "the statement made in Article-II of the Charge is vague and there is no specific and distinct charge against the present petitioner showing his unauthorized absence from his duty."

It further stated, "the respondent admitted the charge framed against him wherein he was reported to be absent from his duty for 10 days in full and 19 days in half for the calculated period from 01.01.2008 to 23.03.2008." However, it found that, "except the report of SSE/CSR dated 21.03.2008, there is no other mention about any DAR in the report wherein some Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him."

The Court stated that "the increment was stopped on 2 occasions and there was a service break for the respondent, but it is not supported with any particular documents" and that these materials were not discussed in the inquiry report.

It recorded, "the penalty of 'removal from service' imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for unauthorized absence of 10 days in full and 19 days in half cannot be considered as proportionate to the offence committed by the delinquent official."

Regarding the claim of medical exigency, the Court stated, "the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the ground of illness of the mother of the respondent which was pleaded by the respondent before the Inquiry Officer at the time of enquiry."

The Court held that "in absence of any particulars of the documents or the relevant records, it cannot be held that all particulars of the documents in regards to the earlier service record of DAR etc. was placed before the Inquiry Officer or the documents were furnished to the present respondent to take his proper defence."

On the question of delay, the Court observed, "the delay has already been condoned by the learned Tribunal and that was not challenged by the petitioners."

It found that "the entire enquiry proceeding was initiated against the respondent" based on absence between 01.01.2008 to 21.03.2008 and that "charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which form the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on a vague charge."

Also Read: Goods Confiscated Under Section 130 Of GST Act Can Be Released | Kerala High Court Allows Release During Appeal If Not Auctioned

The Court concluded its judgment by stating: "In view of the entire discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, while passing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017, in Original Application No. 040/00410/2015, has not committed any error or mistake and rightly reinstated the respondent from the date of removal of his service on 12.12.2008 with 50% back wages, which requires no interference of this Court and therefore, the same stands upheld."

The Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety and stated: "Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Goswami, Standing Counsel, Railway Department; Ms. B Devi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Tamuli, Advocate (For Caveator)

Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pradip Kumar Nandy

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8786

Case Number: WP(C)/1749/2018

Bench: Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mitali Thakuria