Disciplinary proceedings must consider a respondent's medical condition; failing to do so violates principles of natural justice and calls for quashing the action taken against them.

J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 23^rd day of July 2025)

Basant Balaji J., The Petitioners are the Union of India and three others, who were Respondents in O.A. No. 180/0033/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The present Respondent was the original Applicant in that case.

2. The Respondent began his service as a Mechanic with the Department of Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, on 23 May 2006. After being medically decategorized, he was deemed fit for "Cee-one and below" posts and subsequently assigned as a Technician Grade II (signal). Later, effective 26 September 2022, he was alternatively placed as an office clerk under the Senior Section Engineer/Career and Wagon.

3. While on duty, the Respondent applied for 10 days of leave on average pay and travelled to his native place. He failed to rejoin duty on 14 April 2017, which led to disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules , 1968. A Form No. 5 Memorandum was issued to his last known address and also posted on the office notice board in the presence of railway employees. Receiving no response, a Chief Loco Inspector was appointed as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer sent notices by registered post to the Respondent’s last known address, but again, there was no response. Consequently, the enquiry proceeded, examining an administrative witness and verifying records, culminating in the Annexure - A9 report which found the charges proven. Based on this report, Annexure - A1 order dated 13 July 2018, was issued, removing him from service.

4. The Applicant reported back for duty on 18 June 2018. He appealed the Annexure A1 order, but it was rejected (Annexure A2). His subsequent revision application was also dismissed (Annexure A3). Consequently, the Applicant challenged Annexures A1 to A3 before the Tribunal. The Petitioners submitted a reply statement (Annexures R1 to R12), to which the Applicant filed both a rejoinder and an additional rejoinder.

5. The Tribunal observed that the Respondent submitted Annexures A4 and A5, which include a medical certificate and prescriptions from the Government Community Health Centre, Aklera District, Jhalawar (Rajasthan), dated 14 June 2018. Annexure A4 explicitly states that a Medical Board concluded the Respondent’s absence from 14 April 2017 to 17 June 2018, was due to back pain and schizophrenia. The Tribunal determined it was a serious error that neither the Appellate nor the revisional authority considered these crucial medical documents. This oversight meant they failed to assess whether the Respondent’s medical condition prevented him from participating in any inquiry during that period. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had presented Annexures A4 and A5, comprising a medical certificate and prescriptions, both dated 14 June 2018, from the Government Community Health Centre, Aklera District, Jhalawar (Rajasthan). Significantly, Annexure A4 indicates that a Medical Board opined the Respondent’s absence from 14 April 2017 to 17 June 2018, was caused by back pain and schizophrenia. The Tribunal found a serious fault with the appellate and revisional authorities for not considering these documents, thus neglecting to determine if the Respondent’s health precluded his participation in the inquiry during the relevant time.

6. The Tribunal also considered that the Respondent was referred to Perambur Railway Hospital for a report on his illness and was treated there as an inpatient. These facts, along with Annexures A4 and A5, led the Tribunal to definitively conclude that the Respondent was undergoing treatment for Schizop