Removal From Service For Unauthorized Absence Is Excessively Harsh Punishment: Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench of Justice Om Prakash (Judicial Member) and Mohan Pyare (Administrative Member) held that removal from service for unauthorized absence is an excessively harsh punishment. It was held that generally, courts and tribunals do not intervene in disciplinary matters by way of judicial review. However, interference in the quantum of punishment is confined to exceptional cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proven charges. Brief Facts: The Applicant was serving as a Junior Engineer (T&C) in the Railways. He fell server ill from 25.06.2018 to 03.09.2018 and applied for a medical leave for this period. However, a major penalty charge sheet dated 30.9.2018 was issued against him by the Railways. An Inquiry Officer was subsequently appointed to investigate the charges outlined in the `charge sheet. Despite being summoned to the inquiry through letters dated 18.1.2019 and 5.2.2019, the Applicant was unable to attend due to illness. He requested for additional time, which was not granted. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte, culminating in a report submitted to the disciplinary authority on 6.3.2019, leading to the Applicant's removal from service on 29.5.2019. Subsequent appeals were fruitless, prompting the Applicant to file an original petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (“Tribunal”). The Railways contended that the Applicant was absent without authorization from duty from 25.6.2018. He failed to fulfil his obligation to inform and provide a medical certificate from a recognized hospital. The Railways asserted that the Applicant failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer as scheduled, although he did submit representations citing his ill health and family issues. Further, the documents regarding the Applicant's medical treatment were unacceptable under PMC Rules. They also stated that the Applicant neglected to submit a defence brief on the inquiry report when given the opportunity. Moreover, they argued that the Applicant's appeal was time-barred and that no provision existed for a second appeal. Observations by the Tribunal: The Tribunal observed that it was evident that the inquiry adhered to the prescribed legal procedures without any indication of irregularity or procedural impropriety. The Applicant failed to substantiate any claim of procedural injustice, as ample opportunity for the defense was afforded during the inquiry. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated in conducting the inquiry. Regarding ex-parte proceedings, the Tribunal clarified that such proceedings do not necessitate strict adherence to the Evidence Act for witness testimony. It signifies that the inquiry officer can proceed based on available material in the absence of the accused. Should the inquiry officer deem further investigation necessary at any stage, they retain the prerogative to conduct it. If the accused voluntarily forgoes their right to a hearing, they cannot later contest the absence of oral inquiry or claim infringement of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the accused cannot manipulate proceedings by appearing only after decisions are made without providing their written defence. Concerning the issue of severity of punishment, the Tribunal highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It held that courts and tribunals can only intervene if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proven charges. Additionally, the court or tribunal must record reasons for deeming the punishment disproportionate. However, interference in the quantum of punishment is confined to exceptional cases. In light of these considerations, the Tribunal found that the removal from service was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the offence of unauthorized absence. Therefore, the original application was allowed, and the disciplinary authority was directed to reconsider the quantum of punishment for the Applicant. It was held that the Applicant could not be dismissed, removed, or compulsorily retired. Case Title: Ajay Kumar vs Union of India and Ors. Case Number: Original Application No. 452 of 2021 Advocate for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Advocate for the Respondent: Sri Ajay Kumar Rai Click Here To Read/Download Order

Removal From Service For Unauthorized Absence Is Excessively Harsh Punishment: Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar

Tags