Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16764
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G.Sewlikar, J, Shri Krishna, A
P.B.Padalwar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No.85/2022|MA No.176/2022|MA No.985/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D.M.Shukl
For the Respondents: Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit
Absence not unauthorized under Postal Manual Rule 63 if employee informs superiors of whereabouts and illness via leave applications/medical certificates responding to notices; enquiry findings perverse without considering record or wilfulness.
Headnote:(A) Postal Manual Volume III - Rules 62 & 63 - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Unauthorized absence - Absence from duty does not constitute unauthorized absence under Rule 63 if employee keeps superiors informed of whereabouts and illness through repeated leave applications with medical certificates responding to official notices - Charge sheet initiation under Rule 63 impermissible if movements known and communications replied to - Disciplinary findings perverse if contrary to record showing regular intimation and justification for absence without finding of wilfulness. (Paras 12, 13, 24, 25, 31)
(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Wilful absence - Mere absenteeism without prior permission not misconduct unless proved wilful; enquiry officer must record specific finding of wilfulness, absence thereof vitiates guilt holding. (Paras 29, 30)
(C) Judicial review - Scope - Tribunal can reappraise evidence and interfere if enquiry findings perverse, ignoring relevant rules/material or contrary to record; not mere reappreciation but correction of perversity. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
Postman granted casual leave for two days in December 2013, thereafter remained absent till January 2017 submitting repeated leave extension applications with medical certificates for various illnesses upon official notices asking to join duty; period treated dies non; charge sheet issued for unauthorized absence from 18.12.2013 to 17.01.2017; enquiry found guilty, punishment of pay reduction imposed, enhanced on review; OA challenged orders alleging regular intimation prevented unauthorized absence charge.
Findings of Court:
Original records confirm employee informed superiors of illness and whereabouts via applications and medical certificates responding to all notices; never failed to reply or had unknown movements; Rule 63 conditions for charge sheet absent; enquiry findings perverse ignoring record and rule; no wilfulness finding; orders set aside with consequential benefits.
Issues: Whether repeated leave applications with medical certificates responding to notices preclude unauthorized absence charge under Rule 63; perversity of enquiry findings ignoring employee communications and rule; requirement of wilfulness for absence misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: Absence not unauthorized if employee informs of illness/whereabouts and responds to communications per Rule 63; charge unsustainable without such failure; findings perverse if rule/record disregarded, warranting interference; wilfulness essential for guilt, unproven absence not misconduct.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary punishment for absence (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' version of unauthorized absence (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties' contentions on leave and illness (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. charge and rule 63 p&t manual requirements (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. evidence of applicant's communications and certificates (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. absence not unauthorized; findings perverse (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. oa allowed, punishment set aside (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
ORDER
By Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)
Challenge in this OA is to order dated 28th June 2019 passed by the Reviewing Authority confirming the order of Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority.
2. Facts in nutshell can be stated thus:
2.1 Applicant is working as a Postman in the Department of Posts. He was appointed as Postman on 20th June, 2012. According to the applicant there is Union rivalry amongst Postman’s Union. Applicant joined one Union because of which the Sub Postmaster became hostile towards applicant and started intimidating the applicant. The applicant, because of this, developed a medical condition called “Fear Psychosis”. Because of that the parents of the applicant took him to his native place. He had, therefore, filed the application for leave for three months but because of intimidation of the Sub Postmaster, he withdrew that application and applied for Casual Leave for 16th December, 2013 and 17th December, 2013. The applicant, therefore, was not in a position to join duties because of his medical condition called “Fear Psychosis”. The applicant had applied for leave in writing due to depression, paranoid medical condition. The respondents, therefore, initiated enquiry against the applicant by serving charge sheet dated 16th June, 2017 on him alleging that on expiry of leave period, applicant did not attend duty and applied for grant of leave without mentioning period of leave. The applicant was shown to have been unauthorizedly absent from 18th December, 2013 to 17th January, 2017. Applicant contends that after completion of enquiry, he was punished by imposing a penalty of punishment of reduction of pay from Rs.22,400/- to Rs.21,700/- for a period of 37 months with a direction that official will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of reduction, it will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.
2.2 The applicant made representation to the Reviewing Authority (DPS Pune). However, the Reviewing Authority enhanced punishment to reduction of pay from Rs.22,400/- (pay scale Rs.5200-20200) pay matrix level-3 to Rs.21,700/- (pay scale Rs.5200-20200) pay matrix level- 3 for a period of 48 months with immediate effect. Reduction will have the effect of postponing of future increments of his pay. The applicant contends that he had regularly intimated the respondents about his absence. He had annexed medical certificate also. He contends that the respondents treated the period from 18th December, 2013 to 17th January, 2017 as dies non. The respondents have also punished the applicant by imposing aforesaid punishment for the same period. He submits that when the applicant regularly informed the respondents about his absence, it cannot be called as unauthorized absence.
3. The respondents filed their reply. They aver that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the OA. The Reviewing Authority passed the order on 28th June, 2019 and the OA was filed on 21st January, 2022. The cause assigned in the application for condonation of delay is not at all a sufficient cause, and therefore, the OA needs to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. They contend that the applicant had availed casual leave on 16th December, 2013 and 17th December, 2013, which was granted by Sub Postmaster, Savedi Road. Thereafter, the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 18th December, 2013 to 17th January, 2017. The applicant joined the duties on 1
