Disciplinary orders regarding unauthorized absence must contain specific findings on whether such absence was willful.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste employee and Peon at Central Bank of India since 1998, was subjected to disciplinary action for unauthorized absence totaling 586 days between 2019 and 2021.

The petitioner contended the absence was due to genuine medical ailments and alleged the action was a vindictive response to his prior complaint of caste-based harassment against the Bank Manager.

Despite submitting medical certificates and raising a plea of "double jeopardy"—claiming he was already punished for a portion of the same period in a previous inquiry—the Disciplinary Authority (DA) found him guilty on May 31, 2024, and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on July 24, 2024.

The petitioner's statutory appeal and revision were subsequently dismissed.

He challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing procedural lapses and a lack of a reasoned order.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority’s order was a "speaking order" that recorded valid and justifiable reasons for its conclusion

2. Whether unauthorized absence from duty automatically amounts to misconduct without a specific finding that such absence was "willful"

The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must pass "speaking orders" reflecting the application of mind to facts and circumstances.

Administrative decisions must be self-sustaining and impregnated with reasons (State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh).

Recording reasons is a component of natural justice and human rights (Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan).

In cases of unauthorized absence, the disciplinary authority must prove the absence was "willful" rather than necessitated by compelling circumstances like illness (Krushna Kant B. Parmar v. Union of India).

The court found the impugned punishment order failed the test of a "speaking order" because the Disciplinary Authority did not provide a reasoned assessment of the petitioner’s defense or the evidence.

The DA failed to record a specific finding on whether the absence was "willful" or caused by "compelling circumstances" beyond the petitioner’s control, such as his medical condition.

Following the Krushna Kant precedent, the court reasoned that without a clear finding of willfulness, unauthorized absence alone does not constitute misconduct.

The court also observed that the DA did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s contention regarding double punishment for overlapping periods.

The court quashed the orders of guilt (31.05.2024), compulsory retirement (24.07.2024), the appellate order (14.11.2024), and the revisional order (17.03.2025). The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order within three months, focusing specifically on whether the absence was willful.

The court clarified that if reinstated, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages on the principle of "no work no pay," and any pension received must be adjusted or refunded.