The Orissa High Court said that simply because an employee's leave is rejected or not approved does not automatically mean the employee intentionally or deliberately stayed away from work. (AI-generated Image)The Orissa High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a railway employee who was punished for 22 days of unauthorised absence, holding that misconduct cannot be established without proving the absence was wilful.A bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash ordered 50 per cent back wages and directed authorities to recalculate and release his pensionary and retiral benefits. The court said that it needs to be emphasised that non-sanction of leave and wilful absence from duty are not synonymous expressions.“The misconduct attributed to the petitioner is unauthorised absence from duty for a period of approximately 22 and a half days. The record does not disclose any allegation of dishonesty, moral turpitude, financial irregularity, corruption, insubordination resulting in loss to the administration, or any conduct prejudicial to public interest,” the July 6 order reads.The man was stated to have worked with the Railways for 22 years before disciplinary action was taken against him. The court said that during such a long tenure, the Railways hadn’t placed on record any material to prove misconduct.Also Read | Supreme Court restores honour of IAF officer dismissed 30 years ago over ‘superior’s orders’The order pointed out that merely because leave sought by an employee is declined or remains unsanctioned, it does not inexorably follow that the employee’s absence from there becomes deliberate, contumacious or wilful.Leave dispute triggered disciplinary proceedingsThe employee joined the South Eastern Railway as an Assistant Station Master in 1984. He was subsequently promoted to Station Master in 1987 and later to Deputy Station Superintendent in 1999. While serving in this capacity, he was involved in an accident on December 9, 1999, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash were dealing with a plea of a former Railway employee challenging Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order.After undergoing medical treatment and being fitted with a prosthetic limb, he was medically decategorised and transitioned into the role of Office Superintendent-II. He was later posted as Chief Office Superintendent in the Operating Department under the Divisional Railway Manager at Sambalpur, East Coast Railway.Story continues below this adIn 2008, he challenged his transfer from Sambalpur to Titlagarh before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He was protected by an interim stay order and continued working at Sambalpur until the authorities ultimately rejected his retention request.The following year, he went on leave to care for his ailing mother. Although he claimed to have notified the department, the leave was rejected, and he was marked absent without authorisation. Ensuing disciplinary proceedings led to his dismissal from service in 2012, which was subsequently mitigated to compulsory retirement on appeal. In 2019, he challenged the administrative orders, but the CAT dismissed his petition in 2021, prompting his present appeal before the high court.Punishment not proportionate: OrderThe refusal of leave may establish the factum of unauthorised absence; however, it does not by itself establish the misconduct flowing from such absence.The distinction assumes significance in the facts of the present case.Throughout the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner’s explanation remained consistent.According to him, he was constrained to remain away from duty owing to the serious illness of his mother, who required his personal attendance and medical care.Neither the enquiry report nor the consequential orders record any finding that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was false, fabricated or lacking in bona fides.The record does suggest that the petitioner’s approach contributed, at least in part, to the prolongation of the controversy, and such conduct cannot receive the imprimatur of this court.The punishment imposed bears little proportion to the misconduct alleged.The authorities appear to have treated the Petitioner’s absence as an infraction warranting the severest possible civil consequences short of dismissal or removal.The resultant punishment, therefore, travels beyond the realm of disciplinary correction and enters the domain of disproportionality.Final orderJagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More