Permanent 100% pension cut upheld for thirteen years of unauthorised absence.

The applicant, a railway employee who joined service in 1964, was working as Chief Inspector of Works at Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala (“RCF”). He was repatriated to Northern Railway by order dated 20 March 1991 and relieved from RCF on 29 April 1991 with directions to report to Northern Railway Headquarters, New Delhi.

The applicant claimed that he had been medically ill, had submitted medical and fitness certificates, and had not been properly served with the repatriation order. The respondents’ case was that, despite being relieved from RCF, he failed to report to Northern Railway and remained unauthorisedly absent until his retirement on 30 June 2004.

After retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules through a charge memorandum dated 18 June 2008, served on 24 July 2008.

The applicant challenged the penalty on grounds including limitation under Rule 9, impermissibility of a fresh inquiry, absence of evidence, non-compliance with natural justice, inadequacy of the disagreement note, non-supply of the UPSC advice in advance, delay, and disproportionality of the punishment.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated after the applicant’s retirement and the charge memorandum dated 18 June 2008 were barred by the four-year limitation prescribed under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

Whether the second inquiry was legally impermissible after the submission of the first inquiry report.

Whether the inquiry and penalty order were vitiated by want of evidence, destruction of records, violation of natural justice, or an invalid disagreement process.

Whether the applicant’s alleged unauthorised absence from 1991 to 2004 was established and whether the permanent 100% reduction in pension was arbitrary, disproportionate, or otherwise unlawful.

The proceedings were governed principally by Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, which permits post-retirement disciplinary proceedings and pensionary punishment in cases involving grave misconduct or negligence, subject to the prescribed procedural and temporal limitations.

The Tribunal also considered the principle under Fundamental Rule 18 that, ordinarily, a Government servant cannot be granted leave for a continuous period exceeding five years unless the President otherwise directs in exceptional circumstances.

The general disciplinary-law principles invoked by the applicant included the requirement that misconduct be established on evidence, that an employee’s absence must be assessed in the context of whether it was wilful, that a fresh inquiry cannot ordinarily be ordered merely because the disciplinary authority dislikes the first report, and that punishment must not be disproportionate; these principles were raised through authorities including State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, and Union of India v. R.P. Singh.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ factual case that the applicant had been repatriated by order dated 20 March 1991, relieved from RCF on 29 April 1991, and directed to report to Northern Railway.

It treated the applicant’s failure to produce a joining report, pay slips, leave records, or other documentary proof of service or authorised leave between 1991 and 2004 as significant.

The Tribunal further held that there was no evidence demonstrating that the applicant had been on medical leave for the entire thirteen-year period and observed that such prolonged medical leave was not permissible under the applicable rules.

Although the applicant challenged the limitation, second inquiry, evidentiary basis, disagreement note, and procedural fairness, the Tribunal did not separately adjudicate each objection in detail. Instead, it concluded that the prolonged absence was inexplicable and that the penalty was justified in the circumstances.

The challenge to the disciplinary proceedings and penalty order dated 14 July 2015 was rejected. The Original Application was dismissed, any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.