Upon exoneration for alleged unauthorized absence, authorities must regularize the period and pay corresponding salary.

The applicant, a railway employee, fell ill and repeatedly informed the department about his treatment between October and December 2019, submitting medical documents and, subsequently, a fitness certificate issued by the competent railway medical authority.

He was declared fit for duty on 14 February 2020 and requested that his absence be regularised by conversion into commuted leave or other permissible leave.

The respondents treated him as unauthorisedly absent and issued a charge-sheet alleging absence from 23 October 2019 to 22 January 2020.

Although the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of censure on 4 March 2021, the appellate authority cancelled the punishment after noting that the applicant had informed the department about his illness from time to time.

The applicant thereafter sought payment of salary for November 2019 to February 2020, along with interest.

The respondents opposed the claim on the ground that the applicant had remained absent and that conversion of the absence into leave was impermissible.

Whether the applicant’s period of alleged unauthorised absence could be regularised by adjustment against leave available in his leave account after the appellate authority cancelled the punishment imposed for such absence.

Whether, in the absence of sufficient leave in the applicant’s account, the respondents could retrospectively grant extraordinary leave to regularise the period of absence.

Whether the applicant was entitled to payment of salary for the regularised period.

The Tribunal applied Circular RBE No. 59 of 2014 dated 29 May 2014 issued by the Railway Board, which permits regularisation of an absence period through available leave and, where no leave is available, through extraordinary leave.

It also relied on Rule 530(5) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, which provides that the competent authority may retrospectively commute periods of absence without leave into extraordinary leave.

The Tribunal further proceeded on the principle that, once the disciplinary punishment concerning the alleged unauthorised absence had been cancelled by the appellate authority and the employee had produced medical and fitness certificates, the competent authority was required to consider regularisation of the absence through permissible leave.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had consistently informed the competent authority about his illness and had submitted a fitness certificate from the competent medical authority.

The appellate authority’s cancellation of the censure, after acknowledging those communications, meant that no disciplinary punishment remained operative in respect of the alleged unauthorised absence.

In those circumstances, the respondents could not simply refuse regularisation on the ground that the applicant had been absent.

Applying Circular RBE No. 59 of 2014 and Rule 530(5), the Tribunal held that the respondents ought first to adjust the period against leave available in the applicant’s account and, if such leave was unavailable, could grant extraordinary leave retrospectively to regularise the absence.

Having directed regularisation of the period, the Tribunal also directed payment of salary for that period.

The respondents were directed to regularise the alleged absence period by adjusting it against any leave available in the applicant’s leave account.

If no such leave was available, they were directed to consider granting extraordinary leave under the applicable rules and to regularise the applicant’s service accordingly.

The respondents were further directed to pay the applicant salary for the relevant period.

The exercise was to be completed within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.