Removal for unauthorized absence is disproportionate where extreme personal tragedies and administrative failure to clarify retirement options exist.

The applicant was appointed as a Fitter with the DTC in 1979

Following the death of his son in 2005, he repeatedly applied for voluntary retirement (VRS) between 2005 and 2010, citing personal hardship and the subsequent death of his wife in 2010

The respondents, asserting that no VRS scheme was in effect, did not formally communicate the unavailability of the scheme or suggest resignation as an alternative

Due to the applicant's continued absence from duty, the respondents issued a charge memo in 2012

Despite the applicant having served for over 26 years and being eligible for a pension, the respondents imposed the punishment of removal from service via order dated 26.06.2013, which was upheld on appeal on 05.12.2013

The applicant challenged these orders seeking reinstatement and pensionary benefits

1. Whether the punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence was disproportionate given the applicant's personal circumstances and his repeated requests for voluntary retirement

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to communicate the non-existence of a VRS scheme and the alternative of resignation invalidated the punitive action for unauthorized absence

The Tribunal relied on the principle of proportionality in service law and the necessity of a "humane approach" in disciplinary matters involving personal distress

It cited the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta’s decision in Gour Hari Kayal and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2005), which held that in cases of unauthorized absence stemming from illness or requests for voluntary retirement, authorities should exercise restraint and avoid harsh punishments like dismissal that result in loss of livelihood

The Tribunal found that the respondents acted on an uncommunicated presumption that the applicant should have resigned since no VRS scheme existed

The Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to consider the applicant's 26 years of service and his eligibility for the pension scheme, which he would lose upon removal

Critically, the respondents disregarded the "acute mental stress" caused by the deaths of the applicant's son and wife, which the Tribunal identified as the primary reason for his absence

Applying the rule of proportionality, the Tribunal determined that the respondents' decision to impose the "harshest punishment" without acknowledging the attendant family tragedies was untenable and legally flawed

It held that the punishment was completely disproportionate to the alleged offense

The Tribunal directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant, fix his notional pay for the period of absence for the purpose of computing retiral benefits, and grant him all applicable pensionary benefits

Compliance and payments were ordered to be completed within six weeks