Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice by ensuring clearly framed charges and proportionate penalties for employee misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

(M. Thakuria, J)

Heard Mr. Gautam Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Railway Department appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Santanu Nandan Tamuli, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in Original Application No. 040/00410/2015 (Shri Pradip Kumar Nandy Vs. Union of India & Ors.), allowing the Original Application filed by the applicant/respondent against the petitioners/Railways.

3. It is to be noted here that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, while passing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, had set aside the Order of Disciplinary Authority, bearing No. E/74/DAR/5/P, dated 12.12.2008, pursuant to a Disciplinary Proceeding initiated by it against the respondent for major penalty under Rule 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1968’) of removal from service of the respondent for unauthorized absence from duty.

4. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that the respondent, herein, who was at the relevant point of time serving as Technician Grade III in the Office of the SSE/CRS/DBWS, N.F. Railway, was a very important and sensitive post under the N.F. Railway, was found very irregular in his duty for a long period of time. He was in the habit of remaining unauthorized absent from duty very frequently. However, a lenient view was taken by the DAR to offer him scope for improvement, but he never improved. Rather, he was repeating the same offence of remaining unauthorized absence from his duty without any justifiable ground. Situated thus, the Respondent Authority was left with no other option and compelled to take disciplinary action against the respondent for his repeated unauthorized absence from duty. Accordingly, the Departmental Authority on 04.04.2008 had served the Memorandum of Charges upon the respondent for major penalty under the Rules of 1968 through standard Form No. 5 vide No. E/74/DAR/5/P, dated 04.04.2008 along with the necessary documents annexed to it which includes a copy of letter, bearing No. CRS/1- Leave, dated 21.03.2008, issued by the SSE/CRS/ DBWS. However, even after receipt of the said Memorandum of Charges for major penalty under Rule 9 of the said the Rules of 1968, the respondent did not submit his written statement of defence to the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) was nominated and the enquiry was held where the respondent accepted the charges framed against him. After enquiry, the report was submitted by the I.O., dated 27.10.2008, wherein it was held that the charge was established and the report was accordingly communicated and acknowledged by the respondent. But the respondent did not submit his statement of defence against the enquiry report, though he was asked to file it. Thereafter, the Notice Imposing Penalty (in short ‘NIP’) was als