Compulsory Retirement For 22-Day Unauthorised Absence Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Grants Relief To Disabled Railway Employee

Finding the punishment to be severely disproportionate to the alleged indiscipline, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–

“The punishment imposed bears little proportion to the misconduct alleged. The authorities appear to have treated the Petitioner's absence as an infraction warranting the severest possible civil consequences short of dismissal or removal. Such an approach overlooks not only the surrounding circumstances under which the absence occurred but also the Petitioner's long tenure of service, his physical condition and the absence of any finding that his conduct was actuated by deliberate defiance of authority. The resultant punishment, therefore, travels beyond the realm of disciplinary correction and enters the domain of disproportionality.”

The petitioner joined as an Assistant Station Master in 1984 and rose to the position of Deputy Station Superintendent in 1999. While working as such, he met with an accident for which he had to get his right leg below the knee amputated. Upon fixing of artificial limb, he was medically declared unfit for the post he held and ultimately, accommodated as Chief Office Superintendent in the Operating Department under the Divisional Railway Manager, Sambalpur, East Coast Railway.

On 12.10.2009, he applied for casual leave for two and a half days for attending to his aged mother at his native place and thereafter sought grant of leave on average pay for a further period of twenty days on account of her deteriorating health condition. As per his version, the said request was also communicated through telegram. However, upon his reporting back, he found that the leave sought for had not been sanctioned and that he had been treated as unauthorisedly absent from duty.

Thereafter, a memorandum dated 05.11.2009 proposing initiation of major penalty proceedings came to be issued alleging unauthorised absence from duty during the period from 12.10.2009 to 04.11.2009. The disciplinary authority, by order dated 15.10.2012, imposed the penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, in revision, the penalty was modified from removal to compulsory retirement from service.

The petitioner assailed the revisional order before the Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the punishment. Thereafter, he filed this writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal.

Two primary issues arose for consideration in the matter, i.e. firstly, whether the misconduct of unauthorised absence stood established in the absence of a finding that the petitioner's absence was wilful; and secondly, whether the penalty of compulsory retirement satisfies the doctrine of proportionality.

'Unauthorised Absence' v. 'Wilful Absence'

The Court stressed that refusal of leave may establish the unauthorised absence, but it does establish the misconduct flowing from such absence. In other words, the Court underscored that not every unauthorised leave culminates in wilful or deliberate absence.

“The distinction assumes significance in the facts of the present case. Throughout the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner's explanation remained consistent. According to him, he was constrained to remain away from duty owing to the serious illness of his mother, who required his personal attendance and medical care. Significantly, neither the enquiry report nor the consequential orders record any finding that the explanation furnished by the Petitioner was false, fabricated or lacking in bona fides.”

Placing reliance upon Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr. (2012), the Court held that where compelling circumstances render it difficult or impossible for an employee to report for duty, the absence cannot by itself be treated as misconduct. It was further held that in a disciplinary proceeding founded on unauthorised absence, the disciplinary authority is required to establish that the absence was wilful, failing which the charge of misconduct cannot be sustained. Such line of distinction found to have been blurred in the present case.

'Disproportionate' – Compulsory Retirement for 22 & 1/2 Days Leave

By placing explicit reliance upon the rulings of the Apex Court in Chairman, All Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar (2010) and Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 322, the Bench reiterated that though Courts must exercise restraint while interfering with disciplinary punishments, intervention would be warranted where the punishment is strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved.

In the absence of any other major allegation against the petitioner coupled with his spotless 28 years of dedicated service, the Court found imposition of one of the severest penalties to be highly disproportionate to the so-called misconduct. Therefore, it concluded–

“…we are satisfied that the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner is one which no reasonable disciplinary authority, properly directing itself to the relevant facts and circumstances, would have considered commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct alleged. The punishment, therefore, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.”

Nevertheless, considering the fact that petitioner is also partly responsible for prolongation of litigation, the Court deemed it just to order payment of 50% of his back wages from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of his normal superannuation. Further, the authorities were directed to provide all pensionary as well as retiral benefits within a period of sixty days.

Case Title: Jaya Chandra Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 40736 of 2021

Date of Judgment: July 06, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Jaya Chandra Mishra, Petitioner-In-Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General & Mr. S.K. Samantray, Central Govt. Counsel

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 74