The judgment came in the case of a railway employee whose retirement benefits were curtailed after disciplinary proceedings were initiated over his prolonged absence from duty. Allowing his petition, the High Court directed the Railways to recalculate and release his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits, besides paying 50% back wages for the period between his compulsory retirement and normal superannuation.
Leave without approval is not automatically misconduct
The dispute arose after railway employee Jaya Chandra Mishra proceeded on leave to care for his ailing mother. Court records show that he had initially applied for leave and later sought an extension when her condition worsened. He also informed the authorities through a telegram. However, the leave was never sanctioned, and the Railways treated the period as unauthorised absence.
A bench comprising Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash observed that merely because an employee's leave application was not approved, it cannot automatically be presumed that the employee committed grave misconduct.
Why the ruling matters
The High Court also found the punishment imposed on the employee to be disproportionate. It noted that Mishra had put in nearly 28 years of service and that there was no finding that he had intentionally defied official orders. Considering the circumstances, including his mother's illness, the bench held that compulsory retirement was an excessive punishment.
The ruling does not mean employees can remain absent from work without consequences. Instead, it clarifies that unauthorised leave alone cannot justify compulsory retirement or denial of pensionary benefits. Before imposing such a severe penalty, the employer must establish that the absence was wilful and ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved.