The Orissa High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a long-serving railway employee, ruling that unauthorized absence from work cannot be classified as misconduct unless there is explicit proof that the absence was deliberate or wilful.
A division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash overturned both the compulsory retirement order and a 2021 decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had previously upheld the disciplinary action. The court ordered the railway administration to treat the employee as having remained in active service until his retirement date, pay 50 percent back wages, and release all recalculated pensionary and retiral benefits within 60 days.
Unsanctioned Leave Is Not Misconduct
In its July 6 order, the bench emphasized that rejecting an employee’s leave request or leaving it unsanctioned does not automatically mean their subsequent absence is deliberate, contumacious, or wilful. The justices noted that unauthorized absence and wilful absence are not synonymous expressions.
According to the court, the employee’s record during his 22-year tenure with the railways showed no allegations of dishonesty, moral turpitude, financial irregularity, corruption, insubordination, or conduct harmful to the public interest. The bench added that the railways had not placed on record any material to prove prior misconduct during his long service.
From Station Master To Administrative Role
The employee joined the South Eastern Railway in 1984 as an Assistant Station Master, subsequently earning promotions to Station Master in 1987 and Deputy Station Superintendent in 1999. In December 1999, he was involved in an accident that resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee.
Following medical treatment and the fitting of a prosthetic limb, he was medically decategorized and transitioned to administrative roles. He served as Office Superintendent-II and was later appointed Chief Office Superintendent in the Operating Department under the Divisional Railway Manager at Sambalpur, East Coast Railway.
A Decade-Long Legal Dispute
The dispute began in 2008 when the employee challenged his transfer from Sambalpur to Titlagarh before the CAT. He secured an interim stay and continued working at Sambalpur until the authorities officially rejected his retention request.
The following year, the employee went on leave to care for his ailing mother. Although he stated that he had notified the department, the leave request was rejected, and he was marked absent without authorization. This absence of approximately 22 and a half days triggered disciplinary proceedings that led to his dismissal in 2012, which was subsequently reduced to compulsory retirement on appeal. In 2019, he challenged the administrative orders, but the CAT dismissed his petition in 2021, leading to the high court appeal.
Disproportionate Disciplinary Action
The High Court observed that while the refusal of leave establishes the fact of unauthorized absence, it does not by itself establish misconduct. Throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the employee consistently explained that he had to remain away from duty to care for his seriously ill mother, and the inquiry report never found this explanation to be false, fabricated, or lacking in good faith.
The bench acknowledged that the employee’s approach contributed in part to prolonging the dispute. However, it ruled that the penalty of compulsory retirement was highly disproportionate to the brief absence. The court concluded that the authorities had treated a minor infraction with the severest possible civil consequences short of dismissal, moving beyond the realm of disciplinary correction into excessive punishment.
