The General Manager ... v. The Registrar Centra..., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 36704 of 2002 and W.P.M.P No. 55185 of 2002

Attorney(S)

Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judges

V.S Sirpurkar
F.M Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was filed by the Railway administration challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed the reinstatement of the respondent without backwages. The respondent was charged with unauthorized absence totaling about five months. After the charge sheet was served, the respondent left his address and did not attend the departmental enquiry, resulting in an ex parte proceeding and removal based on the enquiry report. The enquiry report was not served on the respondent as it was returned with the endorsement “left.” The respondent appealed the dismissal, citing frequent illness, family desertion, and attempts to apply for leave by post. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on merits without addressing these reasons. A revision filed by the respondent was also dismissed in a similar manner. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s reasons were genuine and were not considered by the appellate and revisional authorities, and thus directed reinstatement without backwages.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellate and revisional authorities erred in dismissing the respondent’s appeal and revision without hearing him or considering the reasons given for unauthorized absence.
Whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate given the circumstances of the respondent’s absence and the failure of authorities to consider his justifications.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing reinstatement without backwages.

Arguments of the Parties

Railway Administration's Arguments

The respondent was knowingly absent without authorization, which was an admitted fact.
The authorities had no obligation to consider the reasons for absence once unauthorized absence was established.
The appeal was filed after two years and should have been rejected on the ground of limitation.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent was frequently ill and faced family desertion, leaving him with no support for his young children.
He made efforts to apply for leave by post for the periods of absence.
The appellate and revisional authorities did not hear him or consider his reasons, leading to a mechanical dismissal of his appeal and revision.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the procedural history and factual matrix, noting that the respondent’s absence was admitted but that the reasons for such absence were never considered by the appellate and revisional authorities. The court found that both authorities failed to provide the respondent an opportunity to be heard and merely confirmed the disciplinary authority’s order mechanically. The court acknowledged the respondent’s difficult personal circumstances, including illness and family desertion, which were not disputed or found to be false. The court observed that the enquiry report was not served on the respondent due to his changed address and that the Railway authorities did not produce records such as the inward register to verify leave applications. The Tribunal’s intervention was justified as the punishment of removal was disproportionate, especially since the respondent had already suffered the consequence of unauthorized absence by forfeiting salary for about five months. The court agreed with the Tribunal’s compassionate approach and held that the writ petition lacked merit.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition filed by the Railway administration is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Tribunal’s order directing reinstatement of the respondent without backwages. The court did not set any new precedent but emphasized the necessity of fair hearing and consideration of genuine reasons before imposing disciplinary punishment.

Show full summary ...

The General Manager Home Department, Chennai-3 And 2 Others Petitioners v. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai-104 And 2 Others S

V.S Sirpurkar, J.

1. This writ petition is on behalf of the Railway administration against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’), whereby the tribunal directed the reinstatement of the respondent, but without any backwages. The only charge that was reflected in the charge sheet was unauthorised absence of some spells, the total of which comes to about 5 months. It seems that after the charge sheet was served, the respondent has left his address and he did not attend the departmental enquiry proceedings and therefore he was proceeded exparte. It seems that one witness was examined in those exparte proceedings and the respondent was removed on the basis of the enquiry report in which he was found guilty. That enquiry report also does not seem to have been served on him because, it is the admitted case that the enquiry report was sent on the last address known to the department and that came back with the endorsement “left”. Be that as it may.

2. The respondent filed an appeal against this order and in his appeal memo, he gave the following reasons. He contended that he was frequently ill, and that his wife had deserted him and his two children who were below 5 years of age, and had absconded. He therefore had to leave his son and the daughter in custody of his mother-in-law, probably meaning thereby that the wife had not gone to her parents also. He then pointed out that his mother also could not help him as she was away at Bangalore and his sister was in Indonesia. He then pointed out that he was suffering from ill health and therefore could not attend the duties, though he had made all the efforts to send the leave application by post. He pointed out that he had applied for the leave by post for the stretches from 14.6.1994 to 11.8.1994, then 19.8.1994 to 6.11.1994 and from 6.2.1995 to 12.2.1995 He pointed out that after 13.2.1995, he continued to be present in the office and worked upto 2.6.1995 It seems that thereafter the appellate authority dismissed his appeal, firstly on the ground that there were no merits. The appellate authority merely paraphrased the findings of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal.

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision under the rules. But, even that revision was dismissed by the revisional authority. The tribunal has found that as a matter of fact the respondent had very genuine reasons and at no point of time were those reasons ever considered. Even we have gone through the appellate order and find that the appellate order does not make any reference to the various reasons given. It is not found by the appellate authority that the reasons given were either false or not genuine. In fact, the respondent was not heard at all by the appellate authority and it seems that the appellate authority merely mechanically confirmed the order of dismissal. The same thing ensued during the revision also and the revision also has been dismissed without hearing him and the revisional order is also nothing but a precis of the appellate order. There does not appear to be anything suggestive of application of mind and consideration of the reasons given by the petitioner. In short, before the disciplinary authority, the respondent remained absent because after the service of the charge memo, that too in July 1995, the other communications have returned back with the endorsement “left” and he was not heard by appellate and revisional authorities.

4. Even if we hold that he was at fault on account of his absence, that does not absolve the authorities to find out as to whether he had, in reality, sent any leave application or not. We have seen the whole record ourselves to note that the inward register of the office has not been produced, which would have either supported or falsified the case of the respondent. All that has been done is to examine the witnesses to suggest that he did not attend on the particular days. Be that as it may. We do not wish to go into the findings of facts, but the further fact remains that even at the appellate stage the respondent was not heard at all. We have gone through the order of the appellate authority, which is totally oblivious of the points raised in the appeal memo. We can understand the trauma that the respondent must have suffered because his wife absconded leaving in lurch himself and his two children, who were aged below 5 years. He had then nobody to look after the children, not even his own mother or his sister, who were away in Bangalore and Indonesia respectively. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the appellate authority was bound to enquire into reasons and if found genuine to show some compassion. The same thing occurred with the revisional authority, which had dealt with the matter in an identical mechanical manner. If under such circumstances the Tribunal had intervened and held that the punishment of removal was out of proportion, we do not think that the tribunal has erred in any manner. The tribunal has also observed that the total absence without any salary for a period of about 5 years would by itself be a great punishment to the petitioner and we agree with this observation of the tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the Railways very strenuously argued that here was a case where the employee in the know of all the rules and regulations, had absented himself from the service unauthorisedly. There could be no doubt about the absence because that appears to be an admitted case. But, whether that absence was justifiable or not was for the railway authorities to examine, which they have failed to do. We have therefore deliberately referred to the appeal memo and in our opinion, both the authorities i.e., the appellate authority and revisional authority have gravely erred in not even offering an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the appeal itself was filed after two years. We find that the appeal was not rejected on the ground of limitation, but on merits. If that was so, the appellate authority was bound to give reasons as to why the grounds raised in the appeal were not being accepted. In short, the writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P No. 55185 of 2002 is also dismissed.

The General Manager ... v. The Registrar Centra...