Absenteeism in government service warrants strict consequences, and resignation once accepted by competent authority is irrevocable, impacting entitlement to benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Tribunal.

2. The brief factual background leading to the filing of Original Application No. 706 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) is that the petitioner, who is serving in the State Health Services since 27.07.1993 was at the relevant time posted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer/Neuro at Kasturba Gandhi Hospital in the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (hereinafter referred to as “CLW”). He applied for and availed leave from 17.01.2011 to 22.01.2011.

3. The petitioner claims that he met with an accident on 24.01.2011 and was advised bed rest. In support of such assertion, he has placed reliance on documents including medical prescriptions to submit that he was advised bed rest and therefore, could not attend to his duties. The documents in this regard, start with issuance of a letter written by the petitioner to the authorities on 24.01.2011 enclosing an OPD patient card from the Government hospital. The card is dated 24.01.2011 and advises him complete rest for three weeks. Thereafter, there are other OPD cards, the last being of 28.03.2011 wherein he has been advised rest for eight weeks more. Based on these documents/ material available on record, the petitioner is able to prima facie support medical advice of bed rest, or rest, up to the last week of May 2011. We have put a specific query to the learned Counsel whether there are any other medical documents available with the petitioner to which he has fairly replied in the negative.

4. The petitioner, however, continued to stay away from work and was served with a charge memo dated 10.09.2014 communicating the employer’s proposal to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Appeal Rules”). The petitioner responded by explanation dated 03.10.2014.

5. The petitioner in his explanation has relied upon the medical advice for staying in rest only up till May 2011. There is no explanation offered in his reply for the period between May 2011 till the filing of his explanation on 03.10.2014 regarding the absence, which is not in dispute. After submitting the explanation on 03.10.2014, the petitioner, on the next day, i.e. on 04.10.2014 has submitted a one-line resignation which reads:

“I hereby tender my resignation from Railway Service on medical ground with immediate effect.”

6. The resignation does not contain any document or material to support the medical ground claimed in the resignation letter dated 04.10.2014.

7. The petitioner, thereafter made repeated queries in between 28.11.2014 to 20.05.2016, as to the fate of his resignation.

8. The disciplinary authority, namely the General Manager, passed a speaking order dated 25.05.2016 taking note of the facts, that the petitioner was required to report to the Railway Medical practitioner, or to his headquarter for his check up and treatment as soon as he was found fit to travel. In this regard, intimation was sent to him through registered post on 16.02.2011 and some subsequent letters, which are said to have returned “undelivered”. In view of the continuous unauthorized absence the petitioner was also not being paid his salary since 21.02.2011.

9. However, even though proceedings had been initiated by charge memo dated 10.09.2014 for imposition of a major punishment, the authorities, taking note of his resignation dated 04.10