Disciplinary authority must pass a consequential order explaining unauthorized absence if employment continues.

The applicant, Harshvardhan, was proceeded against departmentally under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, for unauthorized absence from work between August 16, 2011, and September 12, 2011.

A minor penalty of withholding one set of privilege pass was imposed by the disciplinary authority on June 26, 2015, and upheld by the appellate authority on September 4, 2015.

The applicant claimed illness necessitating his absence, notifying authorities by registered post, and subsequently provided private medical certificates that were not accepted by the respondents.

The respondents contended that the applicant failed to clarify his absence and was not entitled to salary during this period based on the 'no work no pay' principle.

The applicant, in the present application, was not challenging the penalty imposed but sought payment of salary for the period in question after adjusting it from leave due.

Whether the punishment order dated June 26, 2015, and appellate order dated September 4, 2015, should be quashed with all consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant is entitled to salary for the period between August 16, 2011, and September 14, 2011, after adjusting it from the leave due, and whether the treatment of this period as Leave Without Pay was illegal.

The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs P L Singla AIR 2009 SC 1149 which clarified that unauthorized absence can either be condoned and regularized by sanctioning leave, or treated as misconduct leading to disciplinary proceedings.

If disciplinary action is taken and punishment is imposed without severance of service, a consequential order must be passed to account for the period of absence in the service record, which is an accounting and administrative procedure that does not supersede the punishment order.

The court also referenced the Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949, as the applicable rules for accounting for the period of absence.

The court noted that the applicant's absence from August 16, 2011, to September 12, 2011, was treated as unauthorized, leading to the imposition of a minor penalty.

While the applicant had submitted private medical certificates, these were not accepted by the respondents.

The court, relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in State of Punjab vs P L Singla, affirmed that once a penalty is imposed and the employee continues in service, it is mandatory for the employer to issue a consequential order explaining how the period of absence will be accounted for.

This consequential order is an administrative procedure distinct from the punishment itself.

Therefore, even though a penalty was imposed, the period of absence still required formal accounting under the relevant leave rules.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order accounting for the applicant’s period of absence from duty, specifically from August 16, 2011, to September 12, 2011, in terms of the provisions of the Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.