MP HC Orders Reinstatement Of Railway Trainee Fired For Absence After Arrest In Later-Quashed FIR, Without Back Wages

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s absence from duty during his arrest and judicial custody could be treated as wilful unauthorised absence

The court held

The Court allowed the petition, quashed both the Tribunal’s order dated 26 June 2025 and the termination order dated 4 November 2022, and directed that the petitioner be taken back into service with consequential benefits, except back wages.

01Facts

The petitioner, a probationary Junior Engineer (Telecom) trainee with South East Central Railway, stopped attending field training on 11 June 2021 and was arrested the following day in connection with an FIR.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

He remained in judicial custody until being released on bail and, after his release, sought to resume training.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

The Railway issued a show-cause notice during his custody, which was later supplied to him; he replied that his absence was involuntary.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

His services were terminated on 4 November 2022 for unauthorised absence under the appointment conditions and Para 301(3)(c) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

The FIR was subsequently quashed.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge to the termination, leading to this petition under Article 227.

¶ 2–7, 18–20

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s absence from duty during his arrest and judicial custody could be treated as wilful unauthorised absence

¶ 21

ii.Whether the termination, based on that absence, could stand after the FIR was quashed, and whether the Tribunal erred by not considering that subsequent event

¶ 22

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178, that absence from duty does not constitute misconduct unless it is shown to be wilful and contumacious.

¶ 21

It also relied on Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 188, for the principle that an employee should not be blamed for a period during which prosecution or detention kept the employee from working, where the proceedings ultimately end in the employee’s favour.

¶ 21

Under Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers, (2004) 11 SCC 168, an adjudicatory body must take account of subsequent events that fundamentally alter the basis of the dispute.

¶ 22

The termination had been made under Para 301(3)(c) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and the petitioner’s appointment conditions.

¶ 19

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 413 Section 419 Section 420 Section 468

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439 Section 482

04Reasoning

The petitioner was on duty until 10 June 2021, was arrested the next day, and could not attend work during his ensuing custody.

¶ 18–22

The Court held that these circumstances made the absence involuntary, rather than wilful or contumacious.

¶ 18–22

The FIR was later quashed, removing the basis for treating the petitioner’s detention as a reason to attribute misconduct to him.

¶ 18–22

Because that subsequent event fundamentally affected the termination’s basis, the Tribunal erred by upholding the termination without taking it into account.

¶ 18–22

The termination, founded on alleged unauthorised absence during the period of detention, was therefore unsustainable.

¶ 18–22