The central legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in cases of punishment imposed on employees, particularly in relation to habitual absence from duty.

K. Chandru, J.

Heard the arguments of Mr. Vellaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ramasamy Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records.

2. Challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT] dated 30.10.2002 passed in O.A. No. 352 of 2002, the Union of India represented by Divisional Railway Manager / Personnel, Chennai Division and three other officers have filed the present writ petition.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 04. 2003 and an interim stay of the operation of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for twelve weeks alone was granted. Subsequently, it was not extended by this Court.

4. The first respondent, who was working as a Kalasi, was charge-sheeted by a charge-memo dated 27. 1999 in terms of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charge against him was that during the year 1998, he was absent from duty for nearly 181 days and in the year 1999, from January to July alone, he was absent for 136 days. Within a period of 1-1/2 years, he had absented himself from duty for more than 317 days. A departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Though he was offered the assistance of a co-employee, he defended himself without any assistance. When he was questioned in the enquiry with reference to his absence, he informed that his wife was a TB patient and he had to take care of her which resulted in his absence. He also stated that since he was having family problem, he could not inform his superior about his absence. The muster roll extract showing his attendance was produced in the enquiry. He also accepted the charge against him and stated that in future, he will attend properly. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, on the basis of the said findings, called for his further explanation. The same was not forthcoming from the first respondent and, therefore, by an order dated 08. 2000, he was removed from service w.e.f. 28. 2000. The first respondent filed an appeal dated 28. 2000 and the second petitioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 211. 2000 confirming the punishment order. Thereafter, the first respondent preferred a revision petition and the revisional authority, viz., the first petitioner, dismissed the revision by an order dated 7. 2001.

5. The first respondent originally moved the CAT in O.A. No. 352 of 2002 against the original order of removal and sought for waiver of appellate remedy in M.A. No. 557 of 2000. The CAT refused to waive the said pre-condition and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application by its order dated 28. 2000. It was thereafter, after exhausting the appellate and revisional remedies, he moved the CAT with the present O.A.

6. It was pointed out by the petitioners in the reply statement that the first respondent had suppressed this information. They also pointed out that in the year 1996, the first respondent even before the issuance of charge-memo, had absented for 176 days. Even after the issuance of charge-memo, and during the period from 07. 1999 to 30.6.2000, he again absented for 123 days. He was a chronic absentee and that no sympathy should be shown to him. Since the charges against the first respondent was proved, the competent authority imposed a proper punishment and that it was not open to the CAT to interfere with the quantum of punishment by the exercise of its power of judicial review under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In this context, a reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749]. He also submitted that the first respondent was working in a sensitive Department, viz., Electrical Rolling Stock Branch where the locos were periodically overhauled and maintained and his frequent absence had caused considerable dislocation in work.

7. However, the CAT, by placing reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., Pyare