Absence due to compelling medical circumstances does not constitute willful misconduct or unauthorized absence.

The applicant, a Cabin Master at Bhaupur, Uttar Madhya Railway, was removed from service on 22/24.01.2013 following an ex-parte inquiry regarding unauthorized absence from duty since 15.01.2010

The applicant contended that his absence was due to "Mental disability and gross weakness," for which he underwent treatment at various hospitals, including Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital and private clinics in Bihar

Although he was referred to Central Hospital, New Delhi, by Railway authorities on 01.04.2011, he failed to report there, citing sudden illness at his residence

His delayed appeal, filed on 19.08.2013, was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 24/25.03.2014 on the grounds of delay and lack of annexed medical records

The applicant challenged the removal and the appellate order, seeking reinstatement and back wages

1. Whether the applicant’s absence from duty can be categorized as "wilful misconduct" justifying the penalty of removal from service in light of his medical condition

2. Whether the ex-parte disciplinary proceedings and subsequent rejection of the appeal violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India Anr (2012), which holds that unauthorized absence does not automatically amount to wilful misconduct if it results from compelling circumstances beyond the employee’s control, such as illness or hospitalization

The Tribunal also considered the procedural protections under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India regarding the dismissal or removal of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

The Tribunal observed that while the applicant failed to formally inform the authorities of his absence starting in 2010, the respondents were not entirely unaware of his medical state, as he had been referred to specialized hospitals by Railway doctors in 2011

Applying the Krushnakant B. Parmar precedent, the Tribunal noted that the disciplinary authority failed to specifically prove that the absence was "wilful" rather than a result of the applicant’s poor medical condition

The Tribunal found that the authorities should have dealt with the matter more sympathetically in the appeal, considering the applicant’s explanation regarding his inability to communicate due to sickness

However, noting that the applicant had since reached the age of retirement, the Tribunal determined that remanding the case for a fresh inquiry would be futile

The respondents were directed to pass a fresh order treating the applicant as "compulsorily retired" from the date of his original dismissal. The applicant was granted all consequential benefits, including arrears of pensionary benefits with 6% simple interest per annum, to be paid within four months