Allowed

Parsuram Jena v. Union of India

Orissa HC14 Jul 2017WP(C)/18761/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ challenge to a CATA order concerned a railway employee punished with compulsory retirement but granted pensionary benefits despite unauthorized absence. The Court held that since the competent authority awarded benefits upon completion of minimum qualifying service and did not frame charges for the pre-punishment period, the petitioner is entitled to the pension. The Court directed the R

What did the court decide?

Directed Railway authorities to disburse the petitioner's pension within eight weeks and supply requisite forms.

3. On perusal of records, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Jun ior Trackman in the Railways with effect from 30.04.1986. While working as such, he fell ill a nd remained absent from duty with effect from 06.03.1999. The petitioner was issued with notic e dated 22.8.2000 (A/1) to report in person to his PWI or submit documentary evidence in suppo rt of absence within seven days of the date of receipt of notice, failing which action as deem ed fit would be taken against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Memorandum of Charge vide A/2 dated 13.6.2002 under Rule-9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 because of his unauthorized absence from duty.

4. On a subsequent medical test also, the petitioner was found unfit due to his illness vide A/4 dated 6.10.2002. Pursuant to Memorandum of Charge, inquiry was conducted in which pe titioner had participated. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary A uthority vide order dated 5.11.2003 (A/7) imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from Rai lway service on the petitioner with all pensionary benefits with effect from 29.01.1998 i.e. t he date from which he had remained unauthorized absent. The authority has taken into cons ideration

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against such punishment order, which was rejected on 20.01.2004. Thereafter the petitioner was called upon to attend the Medical Board on 29.07. 2004 wherein he was recommended for light duty. The petitioner therefore made a representation on 14.09.2004 to allow him to rejoin in service in view of the recommendation made by the Me dical Board.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has produced the sick ness certificate issued by the Railway Medical authorities before the Enquiry Officer also. Th e punishment was imposed on 05.11.2003. The Medical Board of the Railway authorities examined him and on 29.07.2004 recommended that light duty may be offered to the petitioner. As the re commendation of the Medical Board has not been acted upon, he has approached the Tribunal in O .A. No.907 of 2012. The Tribunal has not interfered with the punishment imposed by the Discip linary Authority in the Departmental Proceeding and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for reengagement in view of the Medical Board recommendation to offer light duty and held that by no stretch of imagination a major punishment imposed by the authority will stultify or abrogat e the entire Disciplinary Proceeding in view of such recommendation, without going into the me rit of the same. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since t he applicant has joined in the year 1986 and

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Railway authorities submitted that the petitioner is a habitual absentee from his duty since his appointment and he has not completed the minimum qualifying period of service, thus he is not entitled to get pension. He has already been paid a sum of Rs.286/- as G.I.S and a sum of Rs.14,189/- towards D.C.R.G.

8. Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that no charge was framed regarding the absence of the petitio ner from duty prior to 29.01.1998 from the statement of article of charge, a copy of which is annexed to the Writ Petition, till the date of framing of such charge in the Disciplinary Proc eeding. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties-Railway i s not tenable that the petitioner has not completed the minimum period of qualifying service r ather the punishment imposed by the competent authority on 05.11.2003 reveals that it was impo

sed for long absence in that Disciplinary Proceeding. For convenience the punishment as impose d is extracted below:- Compulsory retirement from Railway service with pensionary benefi t w.e.f. 29.01.1998 i.e. from the date of absence. The applicant has produced before the Disciplinary Authority the sickness certificate as well as the document issued by the Medical Officer declaring him as unfit, which was not in controv ersy. It is

also not disputed that he has joined the service in 1986 and continued as such till 29.01.199 8. He has completed the minimum qualifying period of service to get pension. Consciously, the competent authority has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefit. The charge, which was not fra med against the delinquent should not be considered after the Disciplinary Proceeding was over and the punishment imposed by the competent authority. Thus the petitioner is entitled to get pension as he has completed the minimum qualifying period of service. This Court has only con sidered the prayer of the petitioner so far as pension is concerned instead of his reinstateme nt in service.

9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court directs the opposite parties-R ailway authorities to disburse the pension of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks fr om today and on production of certified copy of this order the requisite forms be supplied to the petitioner, which shall be furnished by him within a period of seven days from such supply . With the above direction this Writ Petition is disposed of. .. S.Panda, J. .. S.N.Prasad, J.

Parsuram Jena v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsuram Jena v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayasmita Dash Vs C.P.M.G.,Orissa Cir.

Bansidhar Bag Vs State and Ors.

J.K.Paper Mills Vs State

Padmanav Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Rourkela Shramki Sangha Vs Sail and Anr.

State of Odisha Vs Bimbadhar Sahoo