Casual leave does not authorize absence unless approved by the competent authority.

The applicant, a Loco Pilot (Shunting), claimed that he had entered his request for casual leave for the 06:00–14:00 roster on 17 February 2018 in the leave register and had notified the authorities in writing.

He did not attend that shift, although the respondents maintained that leave had not been sanctioned and that he had been informed of its refusal because of staffing requirements.

The disciplinary authority issued a minor-penalty charge memorandum alleging dereliction of duty and violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules.

The respondents said the applicant refused service of the memorandum, which was then affixed to the notice board; the applicant sought time to respond but submitted no defence.

The disciplinary authority imposed a one-stage reduction in pay for one year without cumulative effect. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the penalty, after which the applicant sought to have those orders quashed and the absence treated as casual leave.

1. Whether the applicant’s absence from the 06:00–14:00 shift on 17 February 2018 could be treated as authorised casual leave despite the absence of approval by the controlling authority.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and resulting penalty should be set aside for want of service of the charge memorandum, inadequate opportunity to respond, or other procedural or substantive error.

Rules 236 and 507 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, were considered in relation to the applicant’s contention that a railway servant on casual leave cannot be treated as absent; the Tribunal held that leave is not a right and may be availed only when cleared by the controlling authority.

The Railway Board’s Master Circular 15/90 describes casual leave as intended to meet sudden or unforeseen needs.

The charge alleged breach of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules.

Under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is confined to defects such as breach of natural justice or statutory procedure, findings based on no evidence, or perverse conclusions; the court does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

Union of India v. K.G. Soni further limits review to defects in the decision-making process and permits interference where the decision is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to the conscience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not claimed that his leave was granted and that he had been informed it would not be sanctioned because no substitute was available.

His advance request did not establish an unforeseen need for casual leave, and the Tribunal concluded that he was unjustified in absenting himself after the refusal had been communicated.

It also rejected the non-service and opportunity arguments: the applicant had refused the charge memorandum when it was tendered, it was then affixed to the notice board, and he had sufficient time to submit a defence but did not do so.

Applying the limited judicial-review standard, the Tribunal found no procedural irregularity or other basis to interfere; it also noted that the revisional authority had considered the relevant contentions and that the penalty was the minimum.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.