Removal from service for a trivial discrepancy following denial of defence assistance is impermissibly disproportionate.

Applicant No. 1, a Railway employee appointed on compassionate grounds and subsequently working as Senior Clerk after medical decategorisation, suffered from severe cardiac disease and a 62% permanent hearing disability.

Applicant No. 2, his widowed mother, was receiving family pension of Rs. 9,030 per month and was independently entitled to widow pass facilities under the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986.

Applicant No. 1 declared her income as “not more than Rs. 9,000” for 2023–24, while recording the correct pension of Rs. 9,030 in the following year’s declaration; the declarations were accepted and passes were issued.

The administration alleged that the Rs. 30 difference exceeded the permissible income ceiling under RBE No. 132/2016 and constituted a false declaration.

A major-penalty charge memorandum was issued alleging breach of Rule 3.1(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

During the inquiry, although a Defence Helper was approved on 9 July 2025, the Inquiry Officer concluded the hearing ex parte on 10 July 2025. This occurred shortly after Applicant No. 1’s hospitalisation for cardiac complications.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the Disciplinary Authority thereafter ordered his removal from service with forfeiture of gratuity on 8 August 2025.

The applicants challenged the charge memorandum, withholding of promotion, inquiry report, and removal order before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the charge memorandum and disciplinary proceedings were sustainable when they were founded on a Rs. 30 discrepancy in the declaration of the applicant’s mother’s family pension, despite her independent entitlement to widow pass facilities and the subsequent disclosure of the correct pension amount.

2. Whether the inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 9(13) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by being concluded ex parte immediately after approval of a Defence Helper and during the applicant’s serious medical condition.

3. Whether removal from service with forfeiture of gratuity for the alleged Rs. 30 discrepancy was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

4. Whether the Tribunal could entertain the O.A. despite the applicant’s failure to exhaust the departmental appeal remedy under Rule 21 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

The Tribunal applied the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, including Schedule V and Rule 9, read with Advance Correction Slip No. 20/RBE No. 312/1999, holding that the widow of a deceased Railway employee possessed an independent entitlement to widow pass facilities and could opt to convert that entitlement into her employee son’s privilege pass.

It considered RBE No. 132/2016 concerning the income ceiling for dependent relatives, but treated the applicant’s mother’s widow-pass entitlement as legally distinct from ordinary dependency.

The Tribunal relied on Rule 3.1(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 concerning integrity and conduct, and Rule 9(13) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 concerning reasonable opportunity and assistance in disciplinary proceedings.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, the protections of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the doctrine of proportionality.

Relying on Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India, (2019) 15 SCC 786, and Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 213, the Tribunal held that a punishment grossly disproportionate to the misconduct is amenable to judicial intervention.

The Tribunal held that the disciplinary case rested on an erroneous application of the dependency-income rule.

Applicant No. 2 was the widow of a deceased Railway employee and had an independent widow-pass entitlement; her inclusion in Applicant No. 1’s privilege pass arrangement did not, by itself, transform the matter into a fraudulent claim based on dependency.

The Rs. 30 discrepancy was considered trivial, particularly since the correct pension of Rs. 9,030 was disclosed in the subsequent declaration and the relevant pension records were already available to the administration.

The inquiry was independently vitiated because the approved Defence Helper was not given a reasonable opportunity to assist the applicant, and the hearing was concluded immediately after approval of the Defence Helper while the applicant was recovering from serious cardiac treatment and had a substantial hearing disability.

These circumstances violated the statutory requirement of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice.

Finally, even assuming an irregularity in the declaration, removal from service coupled with forfeiture of gratuity was found to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and therefore arbitrary.

The Tribunal also rejected the exhaustion objection because the O.A. had been instituted before the removal order was passed and the challenge involved patent procedural violations, jurisdictional errors, and gross disproportionality.

It quashed the major-penalty charge memorandum dated 26 March 2025, the Inquiry Report dated 17 July 2025, and the removal order dated 8 August 2025.

The respondents were directed to reinstate Applicant No. 1 forthwith as Senior Clerk, with continuity of service, restoration of service benefits, and full back wages from the date of removal until reinstatement.

They were further directed to process his withheld promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, Level 6, in accordance with the suitability-test result dated 30 July 2024.

The directions were to be complied with within eight weeks of receipt of the order, with no order as to costs.