Court Finds No Wilful Misconduct in Petitioner's Absence; Orders Partial Back Wages and Revises Pension Benefits
In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on Jaya Chandra Mishra, a former Railway employee, for alleged unauthorised absence from duty. The Division Bench comprising Mr. Krishna S. Dixit and Mr. Chittaranjan Dash ruled that the absence due to compelling personal circumstances did not constitute misconduct in the absence of a finding that the absence was wilful.
The judgment revolves around Mishra's absence from duty for 22.5 days in 2009, which the disciplinary authorities treated as unauthorised, leading to his removal from service. This was later modified to compulsory retirement upon appeal. However, the High Court found that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority had established the wilfulness of Mishra's absence, a necessary component to substantiate the charge of misconduct.
The court emphasised that non-sanction of leave does not automatically render absence wilful. Mishra had applied for leave due to his mother's illness, and in its absence, the absence should not be treated as misconduct. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India, which dictates that unauthorised absence must be proven as wilful for it to amount to misconduct.
Furthermore, the court assessed the penalty under the doctrine of proportionality, observing that the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive considering Mishra's long and unblemished service record, physical disability, and absence of prior misconduct. The court noted that the imposed punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged.
Taking into account the prolonged litigation and Mishra's retirement, the court directed that he be granted 50% of back wages from the date of compulsory retirement until the date of his superannuation. Additionally, the court ordered that Mishra's retiral and pensionary benefits be recalculated as if he continued in service until his normal retirement age.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to principles of fairness and proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when dealing with employees who have served long tenures and face personal hardships.
Bottom line:-
Disciplinary proceedings - Unauthorised absence from duty - Absence not wilful and devoid of justification cannot amount to misconduct - Proportionality of punishment must be maintained in disciplinary actions.
Statutory provision(s):
- Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- Principle of Proportionality
- Supreme Court precedents on unauthorised absence and misconduct
Jaya Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2938071
