Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums. Background Nitheesh K., employed as Technician-III under the Railways, took medical emergency leave from 16th to 18th March 2020 to visit his native place in Kerala. He subsequently requested and was granted leave extension from 19 to 21 March. On 22nd March, the government declared a general curfew to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a nationwide lockdown that continued until 2nd June 2020. During the lockdown period, Nitheesh remained at his native place. Eventually, on 31st July, he obtained a travel pass and reported for duty. Upon arrival, he sought regularization of his leave during the period of absence. He cited government circulars regarding the special casual leave considering COVID pandemic. The Railways rejected this request and issued a charge sheet alleging unauthorized absence from March to August 2020. Consequently, Nitheesh was penalised with compulsory retirement. He challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate. The CAT directed the Union to consider imposing a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Railways demoted him to Assistant (Workshop) Grade with pay fixed at Rs.18,000/- for 48 months. Aggrieved, Nitheesh approached the High Court. Arguments Nitheesh argued that the punishment was disproportionate considering the COVID-19 pandemic. He pointed out that the workshop remained closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020, and his extended leave was only until 21.03.2020. He submitted that not being able to explain three days of absence (22nd to 24th March 2020) could not justify such severe punishment. He also submitted that similarly situated employees were granted exemptions or received lesser punishments for unexplained long absences. The Union of India argued that unexplained absence of a government employee constitutes serious indiscipline that cannot be pardoned. While conceding that compulsory retirement might not be justified (as per the Tribunal's order), they maintained that the subsequent penalty of reduction in pay grade was appropriate. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the Court noted that Nitheesh was on sanctioned leave until 21.03.2020, and there was an undisputed nationwide lockdown beginning on 24.03.2020. The workshop too was closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020. In these circumstances, the Court found compulsory retirement to be disproportionate and a “wholly unjustified” punishment. Secondly, the Court observed that the revised punishment amounted to withholding increments with cumulative effect, as it effectively takes away valuable service benefits for almost seven years. The court ruled that this too was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Thirdly, the Court highlighted that Nitheesh had demonstrated his commitment by traveling 400 km during the pandemic to report for duty, after which he was advised to undergo quarantine for 14 days. The Court concluded that there was “hardly any willful absence” on Nitheesh's part that could justify such severe punishment. Thus, the Court set aside both the compulsory retirement order and the revised punishment order. As per the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2020, the court directed the Union to treat Nitheesh's unauthorised absence for three days as casual leave. Consequently, the court ordered his reinstatement with all benefits within one month. Decided on: 25.02.2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16819 |Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Martin G. Thottan and Mr. Varghese John Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. R.V. Sreejith Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Pranav Kumar

Tags