IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14864 of 2008 Ram Narain Paswan, S/o Late Ram Prasad Paswan, resident of Village – Madhura, P.S. – Narpatganj and District – Araria, Khalasi, under Mechanical, North Eastern Railway, Saharsa ………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Chairman, Indian Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Divisional Manager (Mechanical), North East Railway, Samastipur 3. The In-charge Foreman (Loco), Saharsa 4. The Sectional Engineer (Loco, Power), Saharsa 5. The DME (Power) SPJ, North East Railway, Saharsa ………. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha I, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Parul Ranjan, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 29th September, 2008. We heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Tribunal considered the matter thus: “4. On perusal of original record filed by the respondents, we find that the applicant has been a habitual absentee. The authorities have taken a decision after perusal of record of the applicant for the last several years. The record establishes that during the period of 5 years preceding the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant has been absent for 1459 days, i.e. he was away from duty for about 60% working days. Out of total 1459 days absence of 1206 days was unauthorized absence. 5. We have also satisfied ourselves that the applicant was given opportunity to defend himself. The copy of the enquiry report and proposed - 2 - punishment was supplied to the applicant on 15.07.1999 (page 50 of the original record). The applicant submitted his reply on 18.7.1999 ( page 51 of the original record). The application was also given personal hearing on 17.09.1998 (page 41 of the original record). In fact, the instant case is based on the admission of the applicant. The applicant does not deny his absence. He has only offered an explanation for his absence. He says that he was absent on account of illness of his wife and father. We consider that for whatever reasons, if the absence from duty is about 60% it is positively a case for disciplinary action. The disciplinary authority has only endorsed the findings of the enquiry officer. The appellate authority has passed a reasoned and speaking order making reference to (a) personal hearing granted to the applicant, (b) the prior punishment order dated 26.04.1995 (c) past 5 years record of applicant and (d) the enquiry proceedings. The appellate authority has also referred to question no.10 and its answer at page 29 of the proceedings. The applicant was asked pointedly whether he knew that the absence without prior information was against the rules. The applicant acknowledged it. It is natural also. Every employee is supposed to know this basic rule. In any case, ignorance of the rule is not excusable. Thus, we are of opinion that the impugned order of punishment is based on documentary evidence. There is no scope for use to intervene. 6. Before we part, we may mention that the applicant has not pleaded that he was not given due opportunity. In fact, as mentioned above we find that all due opportunity was given to the application; that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the applicant. Non supply of document becomes relevant only if prejudice is caused to the delinquent employee. Once there was admission on the part of the charged employee about the fact of absence from duty, the only question for disciplinary authority was about the quantum of punishment. We consider that the disciplinary authority has taken a reasonable approach in awarding punishment of compulsory retirement instead of punishment or removal or dismissal from service. Thus, judged from all angles we do not find it a case for our interference.” - 3 - 2. We find no justifiable reason to take a view different from the Tribunal. 3. Writ petition is dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/