Willful unauthorized absence justifies removal; parity in punishment is not a matter of right.

The applicant was appointed as a Track Maintainer IV in May 2013

On 31.12.2014, a major penalty charge memo (SF-V) was issued for unauthorized absence totaling 186 days between June and December 2014

Despite receiving the charge memo, the applicant did not participate in the inquiry, leading to an ex-parte proceeding

On 08.04.2015, while disciplinary proceedings were pending, the applicant submitted his resignation, stating he was selected for a post in the Telangana State Police and found the railway job too "hard"

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) removed the applicant from service on 08.02.2016

This order was upheld by both the Appellate Authority (AA) and the Revising Authority (RA)

The applicant later sought reinstatement, citing parity with another employee, G. Swamy, who received a lesser penalty for similar unauthorized absence

Following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous OA (No. 343/2021) to consider his representation, the General Manager rejected the plea via a speaking order dated 17.08.2021

1. Whether the order of removal from service was arbitrary or illegal given that the applicant had tendered his resignation prior to the penalty order

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to parity in punishment with another employee, G. Swamy, under the principle of non-discrimination

3. Whether unauthorized absence constitutes "wilful" misconduct when the employee intends to join another service

The court applied Rules 3.1(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, regarding devotion to duty and unbecoming conduct

Procedural compliance was evaluated under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968

The court relied on UOI v. Parmanand (1989), which restricts a Tribunal’s interference with the quantum of penalty imposed by competent authorities

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Railway Board RBE No. 20/2007, stating that parity cannot be claimed based on a potentially wrongful or lenient decision in another case

The court also cited C. Jacob v. Director of Geology (2008) regarding the non-revival of stale claims through repeated representations

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s unauthorized absence (totaling 729 days over his entire tenure) was a clear violation of duty in a safety-sensitive post

Regarding the resignation, the Tribunal noted that as per extant rules, a resignation cannot be accepted while disciplinary (DAR) proceedings are pending

The applicant’s own admission—that he found the work too difficult and was pursuing other employment—undermined his claim that the absence was due to "compelling circumstances" under the Krishnakant B. Parmar doctrine

On the issue of parity, the Tribunal held that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial and depend on the specific facts of each case; the applicant failed to prove his situation was identical to G. Swamy’s

Finally, the Tribunal observed that the applicant did not allege any procedural lapses in the inquiry, and the repeated representations to the General Manager did not create a fresh cause of action for a stale claim

It ruled that unauthorized absence without prior permission is a misconduct that warrants removal, especially when the employee shows no interest in the service

The court dismissed the plea for parity, affirming that administrative authorities have the discretion to determine the quantum of punishment

Consequently, the OA was dismissed, and the impugned orders of removal and the rejection of the mercy appeal were upheld

No costs were awarded