(Reserved on 12.11.2025)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH (Circuit Sitting Bilaspur)

Original Application No. 310 of 2019 Jabalpur, this the 03rd day of December, 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Y.N.N. Patro, S/o Late Y.D.N. Patro, aged about 37 years, Ex. Goods Guard, R/o 38/410, Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G)-

495004. -Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri A.V. Shridhar V e r s u s

1. Union of India though General, South East Central Railway, New G.M.

Building, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004.

2. Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) - 495004.

3. Sr. Divisional Operation Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) - 495004.

4. Divisional Operations Manager (M/L), South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G) – 495004. -Respondents Advocate for the respondents : Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan O R D E R Delivered by Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial) :- In the present original application, the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A-4), order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure A-5) and order dated 18.01.2019 passed by Revisionary Authority (Annexure A-1). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits.

2. The applicant stated that the applicant while working as Goods Guard was served with a charge sheet dated 01.12.2014 for alleged unauthorized absence from 11.06.2014 to 20 06.2014, 24.06.2014 to 27 06.2014 and from 11.07 2014 to 13.10 2014 and onwards (Annexure A-2) and a detailed departmental inquiry was conducted. After completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 24.04.2015 (Annexure A-3) wherein the charge of unauthorized was proved. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 15.06.2015 imposed the punishment of removal from railway service with immediate effect without sanction of any compassionate allowance (Annexure A-4). Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 08.02.2016 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure A-5). Against the order of Appellate Authority, the applicant preferred a revision on 22.09.2018 and the Rrevisionary Authority vide order dated 18.01.2019 rejected the revision . Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present original application inter alia on the ground that charge based upon which the penalty of removal has been inflicted, was vague and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The applicant has contended that for the period of alleged unauthorized absence from 11.06 2014 to 20 06 2014, 24.06 2014 to 27 06 2014 and 11 07 2014 to 13 10.2014 he submitted PMC on 04 12 2014 pursuance to which he was sent for special medical examination on

08.12.2014 and thereafter joined the duties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the inquiry with regard to unauthorized absence necessarily casts a responsibility on the employer to allege and prove that the unauthorized absence was willful on the part of the charged official The respondents have neither alleged nor proved the element of willful absence on the part of the applicant and therefore the Article pertaining to unauthorized absence cannot be said to be proved. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs Union of India reported in (2012) Volume 3 SCC 178. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the present case, the applicant was suffering from chronic skin disease but belatedly the private medical certificates were submitted to the authorities and therefore the absence of the applicant from duties cannot termed to be willful. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted th