IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized absence must be proven willful to constitute misconduct; failure to provide a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased employee- Late Id Mohammad Khan, who was working as Porter/SEY under the Railways and posted at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 06.01.2014 issued by the DOM/CIC/BSP (Disciplinary Authority) with an allegation that he was remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 11.12.2012 to 26.12.2013 and onwards, as such, a notice was issued to him that due to afore-stated unauthorised absent, he failed to maintain devotion in duty and acted in the manner of unbecoming of a railway employee by contravening the Rule 3.1 (ii) & (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (for short, “RS (Conduct) Rules”) and thereby rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under Railway Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, “RS (D & A) Rules”).

3. The respondent authorities initiated a departmental enquiry and after completion of the same, findings have been given stating that “After carefully gone through all these evidence orally and documentary evidences, I am of the opinion that Sri ID MOHAMMAD posted as PORTER at SIVNI remained unauthorised absent from duty for the period from 11/12/12 to 26/12/13 and onwards is PROVED EX-PARTE”.

4. On the aforesaid premises, departmental enquiry was conducted and after completion of the same, it was found that the petitioner was remained unautorised absent from 11.12.2013 to 26.12.2013 and onwards and he was required to be removed from service. It was further held that the employee was not a fit person to be retained in Railway service anymore. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred in Rule 10(5) and Schedule-II vide Rule No.6 & 7 of the delegation of power under RS (D & A) Rules, the disciplinary authority, after full and proper application of mind imposed the punishment of removal from railway service with immediate effect. It was also held that since the petitioner was imposed penalty and he has been removed from railway service, hence, removal is without sanction of any compassionate allowances.

5. Since the petitioner was expired, his son preferred an appeal against punishment of removal from service as awarded by the disciplinary authority on 11.02.2016, however the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.12.2016. Thereafter, his son preferred a revision petition before the competent authority, which was also dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision petition, he preferred a mercy appeal before His Excellency The President of India on 09.03.2018 and by communication dated 01.05.2018, the son of late employee was communicated that the competent authority has decided to withhold the mercy appeal addressed to His Excellency The President of India. Thereafter, his son preferred an original application before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (for short, “CAT”) bearing Original Application No.203/00640/2018, but during the pendency of the same, son of late employee and petitioner No.1 died on 24.05.2020, the present petitioners were brought on record. The said Original Application was dismissed by the learned CAT vide order dated 04.07.2023 affirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority. The order of disciplinary authority regarding removal from service without sanction of compassionate allowances was affirmed by the learned CAT.

7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned CAT in Original Application No.203/00640/2018, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition inter-alia challenging the findings given by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority wit