New Delhi: The Orissa High Court has ruled that prolonged unauthorised absence from work, by itself, does not amount to grave misconduct warranting compulsory retirement or the denial of retirement benefits. The judgment came while hearing the case of a railway employee whose pension and other retiral benefits had been withheld after he went on leave without formal approval.
The case relates to disciplinary proceedings initiated against railway employee Jaya Chandra Mishra, who remained absent from duty for an extended period after his leave application was not sanctioned. Railway authorities treated the absence as misconduct and imposed compulsory retirement, leading to the loss of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits.
A division bench comprising Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash set aside the punishment and directed the Railways to restore the employee’s retiral benefits. The court also overturned an earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had refused to interfere with the disciplinary action.
The High Court observed that although the employee’s leave had not been sanctioned, he had applied for leave before remaining absent. The bench held that the lack of approval alone could not automatically be treated as grave misconduct.
The court noted that while unauthorised absence may attract action under service and leave rules, it does not necessarily justify one of the harshest penalties available under disciplinary proceedings. It emphasised that authorities must distinguish between a procedural lapse and conduct serious enough to warrant compulsory retirement.
According to the judgment, the Railways have been directed to recalculate and restore all retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other admissible dues. The arrears must be paid within 12 weeks. However, the court declined to award interest on the delayed payments.
The ruling clarifies that disciplinary authorities cannot automatically equate unauthorised absence with grave misconduct. Instead, each case must be assessed on its own facts before imposing severe penalties affecting an employee’s retirement benefits.
Legal experts believe the judgment reinforces an important principle in service law. Amrita Tonk, Partner at CMS INDUSLAW, said the decision highlights that employers must differentiate between administrative irregularities and disciplinary offences before imposing compulsory retirement or curtailing retirement benefits.
The verdict could have wider implications for disciplinary proceedings involving government employees, particularly in cases where leave applications are pending or rejected but are later treated as misconduct severe enough to affect pensionary entitlements.
Comments are closed.