Workman's Past Conduct Of Unauthorized Absence Can Be Considered While Deciding Quantum Of Punishment For New Offence: Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow

Brief Facts:

The Workman was appointed as a 'Safaiwala' on compassionate grounds following the death of his father before retirement. He was removed from service on account of his unauthorized absence from 28.04.2006 to 27.08.2006. However, he was reinstated in 2007 after filing an appeal. Subsequently, the Workman remained absent for 75 days from 19.02.2011 to 04.05.2011, which led to the issuance of a charge sheet against him. Following an inquiry, the Workman was removed from service again. On appeal, the punishment of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (“Tribunal”).

He contended that he was unable to attend the service because of his mother's illness. However, the Inquiry Officer overlooked the medical certificate and relied on the depositions of two persons who were not even listed on the charge sheet. The Workman further contended that the Inquiry Officer went beyond the charge sheet by mentioning unauthorized absence from 28.04.2006 to 27.08.2006, a period for which previous punishment was condoned by the Appellate Authority and the Worker was reinstated.

The Management contended that on one hand, the Workman mentioned that he left for the station with his mother on 18.02.2011 for his village and on the other hand, he presented a medical certificate of his mother's treatment on 19.02.20211, issued in Lucknow. The Management contended that it relied on the Workman's past record to determine the quantum of punishment. Even the Appellate Authority held the Workman guilty and found no procedural flaw in the Management's decision.

Observations by the Tribunal:

At the outset, the Tribunal referred to Union of India vs Subrata Nath [Civil Appeal No. 7939-7940 of 2022], where the Supreme Court held that while performing judicial review, courts must not interfere with the findings of the departmental inquiry except where such findings were patently perverse, grossly incompatible with evidence on record or based on no evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the main contention of the Workman was that both the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority went beyond the scope of the charge sheet by considering the irrelevant unauthorized absence from 28.04.2006 to 27.08.2006. The tribunal noted that this period of past absence was used by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to demonstrate the Workman's habit of unauthorized absence. The Tribunal found no perversity in the reports and the reliance on past absence was found to be appropriate.

The Tribunal also noted that the enquiry report was sent to the Workman's address via registered post but returned undelivered, despite the Department of Post's attempts to inform the Workman. Despite this, the Appellate Authority sympathetically converted his penalty from 'removal' to 'compulsory retirement'.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no procedural infirmity in the observance of principles of natural justice and dismissed the original application filed by the Workman.

Case Title: Bachchey Dhanuk vs Union of India and Others

Case No.: Original Application No. 00219/2013

Advocate for the Applicant: Shri S.M.S Saxena

Advocate for the Respondents: Shri Yogesh Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order