Removal for unauthorized absence was upheld where the employee ignored disciplinary proceedings and filed a delayed appeal.

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Loco Pilot in the North Eastern Railway in 2009 and was subsequently posted as Loco Pilot Shunter (Diesel) at Gonda. He remained absent from duty from 17 August 2017, after taking leave on 15–16 August 2017, and claimed that he was undergoing medical treatment at hospitals in Gwalior until June 2022; he was declared fit on 11 July 2022.

The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence. Notices and opportunities to participate in the inquiry were allegedly sent to the applicant’s address, pasted at his residence or on the notice board, and published in newspapers. The applicant did not participate, and the inquiry proceeded ex parte.

The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 5 April 2019 removing him from service.

The applicant submitted an appeal on 14 July 2022, more than three years after the removal order. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and affirmed the removal on 17 June 2026, finding that the applicant had not adequately explained his failure to inform the administration, apply for leave, participate in the inquiry, or file the appeal within time.

Whether the applicant’s removal from service for unauthorized absence, following an ex parte disciplinary inquiry, was liable to be quashed on the ground of procedural unfairness or non-consideration of his medical explanation

Whether the Appellate Authority properly rejected the appeal filed after the prescribed period of limitation and affirmed the punishment of removal

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications against service-related orders.

It applied Rule 24(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, under which an appeal must ordinarily be filed within 45 days from delivery of the order, although the appellate authority may entertain a delayed appeal where sufficient cause is shown.

The decision also proceeded on the principle that disciplinary proceedings may continue ex parte where the employee, despite adequate notice and repeated opportunities, fails to participate; however, the disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the employee’s explanation and the available material.

The Tribunal found that the charge of unauthorized absence was established and that the respondents had made repeated efforts to secure the applicant’s participation, including service of notices, pasting of notices, registered post and newspaper publication.

Since the applicant neither participated in the inquiry nor submitted a defence despite these opportunities, the ex parte inquiry and subsequent removal order were not found to suffer from procedural illegality.

The Tribunal also accepted the Appellate Authority’s reasoning that the applicant had not satisfactorily explained why he failed to inform the railway administration, obtain leave, report to an available railway medical facility at Gwalior, or produce supporting medical investigation reports.

Further, the appeal was filed after more than three years, whereas Rule 24(2) prescribed a 45-day period, and the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.

The Original Application seeking quashing of the orders, reinstatement and consequential salary benefits was accordingly dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.