Ex parte disciplinary orders based on uncontroverted documentary evidence and admitted concealment of criminal convictions are legally sustainable.

The applicant, a Nursing Sister (formerly Chief Nursing Superintendent) in the North Western Railway, was issued a memorandum of charges on 09.02.2017.

The charges included: (i) unauthorized absence for 67 days, (ii) concealment of criminal convictions and sentences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (iii) concealment of judicial custody from 09.06.2016 to 24.06.2016, and (iv) leaving headquarters during suspension without permission.

The applicant was convicted in four separate criminal cases between 2013 and 2015, receiving various terms of simple imprisonment and fines.

Following an ex parte inquiry where the applicant failed to appear despite notices, the Disciplinary Authority ordered removal from service.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to a reduction of pay from Level-10 to Level-8 for three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 18.08.2018.

1. Whether the Senior Divisional Medical Officer was competent to issue the charge memorandum against the applicant.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent penalty were legally sustainable given the applicant's concealment of material facts and unauthorized absence.

The Tribunal applied the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, regarding the classification of Railway Services, which categorizes Nursing Sisters and Matrons in the relevant Grade Pays as Group ‘C’ posts.

The Supreme Court precedent in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (AIR 2013 SC 904), establishing that in ex parte inquiries, charges can be proved through uncontroverted documentary evidence maintained in the normal course of business without the necessity of oral evidence.

The Tribunal first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, noting that under the 2008 Rules, the applicant's post is classified as Group ‘C’, thereby validating the competency of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer to initiate proceedings.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s judicial custody and criminal convictions were admitted facts that she failed to disclose to the department in a timely manner.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s attempt to justify her absence through medical certificates from a private doctor while being a government hospital employee, coupled with her failure to participate in the inquiry despite notice, justified the ex parte procedure.

Applying the principle from Narendra Kumar Pandey, the Tribunal held that the documentary evidence of conviction and custody was sufficient to prove the charges regardless of the applicant's absence from the inquiry.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellate Authority had already exercised leniency by substituting the penalty of removal with a reduction in rank. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.