Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Tina Negi D/O Lt. Shri Jaswant Singh Negi vs Director General on 30 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17600]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12444/2020
Tina Negi D/o Lt. Shri Jaswant Singh Negi, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Gali No. 6, Punam Colony, Gujrati Mohalla, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Director General, Ministry of Railways, Railway Protection
Force, RPF Control Room, Railway Board, New Delhi
110001
2. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Ministry of
Railways, Railway Protection Force, West Central Railway,
Kota-324001 (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajat Shatru Mina, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Alam Sahani, Adv.
Ms. Garvita Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 21/04/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 21/04/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/04/2026
1) The present writ petition challenges the enquiry report
dated 12.09.2019 and the order of removal dated 26.12.2019
passed by the second respondent, Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner, as well as the appellate order dated 30.06.2020
passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Railway Protection
Force, Jabalpur.
2) The brief facts leading to the present proceedings are that
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (2 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
the petitioner was working as a Female Constable at Kota and
was permanently confirmed to the post on 28.07.2006. While
she was serving under the Prosecution Office of the Railway
Protection Force at Kota, the respondent authorities transferred
her on 27.11.2018 to Sawai Madhopur on the ground of
administrative exigency, and she was relieved from her existing
position by proceedings dated 16.12.2018. The petitioner was on
privilege leave on medical grounds, though without a sick
certificate as required, until 25.11.2018, whereas the transfer
order was issued on 27.11.2018. Thereafter, multiple
communications were issued by the competent authority
directing the petitioner to join her post at Sawai Madhopur. The
petitioner, through the letter dated 10.12.2018, informed the
Senior Divisional Commissioner, RPF, Kota about her medical
condition and requested an extension of leave. On 12.12.2018,
the petitioner’s mother also submitted a communication
informing the authorities about the petitioner’s medical condition
and her inability to attend duty. Despite this, the respondents
continued to issue communications directing her to join at Sawai
Madhopur.
3) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on three
counts. The first charge relates to disobedience of the transfer
order dated 27.11.2018, inasmuch as the petitioner failed to join
her post at Sawai Madhopur. The second charge relates to
continuous absence from duty without following the prescribed
procedure and to her failure to respond to the various
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (3 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
communications issued by the respondents. The third charge is
relating to non-compliance of the procedure to avail medical
leave. The charge sheet was duly served in accordance with the
prescribed procedure, calling upon the petitioner to submit her
explanation. As no explanation was received, an Enquiry Officer
was appointed. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the
petitioner commencing the enquiry; however, the petitioner
neither responded to the notice nor participated in the enquiry
proceedings. Consequently, the enquiry was conducted ex parte.
During the enquiry, the department examined two witnesses and
relied upon various documents. On the basis of the evidence on
record, the Enquiry Officer found all three charges proved. The
initial Disciplinary Authority communicated the enquiry report to
the petitioner and sought her response. Upon receiving her
reply, the initial Disciplinary Authority found that he was not
authorised to impose the penalty of removal and, therefore, he
referred the matter to the second respondent, who, by the
impugned order, imposed the penalty of removal from service.
The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of removal
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and her appeal was also
dismissed, concurring with the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has
been filed.
4) Heard both the sides. 5) The principal contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner was on leave till 25.11.2018,
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (4 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
which was in the nature of privilege leave. However, the leave
was availed on medical grounds without a sick certificate as
required. She went to Delhi on 26.11.2018 to undergo further
treatment at Virmani Hospital, New Delhi, where she was
advised to take rest. Meanwhile, she also suffered an accidental
fall, resulting in further deterioration of her medical condition.
Her medical condition was duly informed to the competent
authority, and she sought an extension of leave. In the
meantime, she was transferred, and she could not join at the
transferred place on account of her continuing medical condition,
which ultimately resulted in the order of removal.
6) The learned counsel further submits that there were
justifiable grounds for the petitioner’s absence. The petitioner
was suffering from stress-related ailments such as migraine and
depression, which compelled her to seek treatment in Delhi and
Mumbai. Such treatment was taken from private doctors, and
the treatment records were forwarded to the competent
authority for extension of leave. According to the petitioner,
where medical treatment is obtained from a non-Railway doctor,
the competent authority is required to refer the medical record
to a Railway doctor to verify the genuineness of the treatment,
and only upon an adverse report from the Medical Officer, the
application for extension of leave can be rejected. It is
contended that, without following such procedure, the competent
authority could not have rejected the request for grant of leave.
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (5 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
the alleged disobedience of the transfer order and non-response
to the communications issued by the respondents, directing the
petitioner to join duty, were on account of her medical condition.
Though the petitioner may have remained absent without
permission, such unauthorised absence cannot be equated with
willful absence. It is contended that every absence does not
amount to willful absence, and there must be evidence and a
clear finding that such unauthorised absence was the result of
willful conduct on the part of the petitioner. In the present case,
there is no such finding recorded either by the Enquiry Officer or
by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the finding on the first
charge is unsustainable.
8) The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended
that upon submission of the treatment records from a private
doctor the competent authority ought to have referred the
petitioner to a Railway medical officer for verification. Without
adopting such a procedure, the authority could not have rejected
the request for extension of leave. It is submitted that such
rejection is in violation of the rules and regulations governing the
grant of medical leave. Finally, it is contended that, even
assuming that Charge No. 3 relates to a procedural lapse in the
submission of the application for medical leave is proved, it does
not constitute such grave misconduct so as to impose the
penalty of removal from service. According to the learned
counsel, the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct, particularly in view of the petitioner’s 16 years of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (6 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
service prior to her removal.
9) In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in the cases of (i) Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs.
Union of India & Anr., reported in 2012(3) SCC 178, (ii) Shri
Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi & Ors,
reported in (2004) 4 SCC 560, (iii) A.L. Kalra Vs. Project &
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., reported in (1984) 3
SCC 316, (iv) Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Meerut & Ors, reported in (1984) 1
SCC 1, (v) Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
& Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566, (vi) Charanjit Lamba
Vs. Commanding Officer, Army Southern Command & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 314 and (vii) Coimbatore District
Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central
Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. & Anr., report in (2007)
4 SCC 669.
10) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner created medical
records to justify her conduct and to avoid compliance with the
transfer orders. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted
Privilege Leave on 25.11.2018, although she claimed to be
suffering from a minor medical condition. However, such a grant
cannot be equated with grant of medical leave, which
mandatorily requires a sick certificate from the Railway Medical
Officer. The petitioner claims to have shifted to Delhi on
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (7 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
26.11.2018 from the headquarters. This indicates that she was
available within the jurisdiction of the Railway Medical Officer at
the headquarters and could have reported to obtain a sick
certificate before shifting to Delhi. It is further submitted that
the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, issued at
Delhi, reflects only a minor medical condition, which could not
have prevented her from applying for sick leave through the
prescribed procedure. The entire claim of the petitioner on
medical grounds appears to be motivated by her transfer to
Sawai Madhopur. As per the applicable rules, the petitioner was
required to submit a sick certificate from the competent Railway
Medical Officer or, if she was outside the territorial jurisdiction of
her headquarters, from the concerned Railway Medical Officer at
that place, or, if railway doctor is unavailable, from a treating
medical practitioner within 48 hours. This requirement has not
been complied with. Even when she was within the jurisdiction of
the Railway headquarters, she failed to obtain and submit the
necessary certificate. Similarly, after reaching New Delhi, she did
not obtain a sick certificate from the local Railway Medical
Officer.
11) It is also the contention of learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this
Court challenging the transfer order, and that the affidavit was
sworn by the petitioner before the Oath Commissioner at Jaipur
during the period in which she claimed to be undergoing
treatment in New Delhi. It is submitted that if the petitioner was
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (8 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
medically fit to travel, she could have approached the Railway
Medical Practitioner or the Railway Doctor near her place of
temporary stay; however, she failed to do so. The aforesaid
conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates disobedience of
the transfer order, and her absence from duty was the result of
willful conduct. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
have duly examined the evidence and rightly concluded that the
petitioner was willfully absent from duty without authorization,
even though such specific terminology may not have been
expressly used in the enquiry report or the disciplinary
proceedings.
12) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
contended that the petitioner violated the procedure relating to
the availment of sick leave as prescribed under the Indian
Railway Medical Manual, particularly Rules 538 and 539. It is
submitted that when the petitioner claims to be on medical leave
and requires continuous treatment, she is required to report
periodically to the Medical Officer if she is fit to travel, or
otherwise communicate her condition if she is bedridden. In the
absence of compliance with such procedure, the petitioner is
liable to be delisted from sick leave on account of non-
attendance. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name
would be entered on the sick-list and would be liable to be
unlisted if she fails to obtain a sick memo issued by the
controlling officer while reporting before the Medical Officer. The
controlling officer is required to endorse the employee’s status,
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (9 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
including any special circumstances such as duty under a
transfer order or pending disciplinary proceedings. Such
compliance is required within 48 hours. It is also submitted that
even assuming that the petitioner was not present at the
headquarters, she could have obtained a sick certificate or
continuation thereof from the Railway Medical Officer at the
place where she was temporarily residing. It is not her case that
no Railway Medical Officer was available near the hospital where
she was undergoing treatment. Therefore, the entire claim of the
petitioner is an indicative of willful/neglect conduct to avoid
transfer by remaining continuously absent from duty.
13) The learned counsel for the respondents also contended
that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in
departmental proceedings is very limited, and this Court may
refuse to interfere where the findings are based on evidence that
reasonably establishes the charges. It is further submitted that
once this Court arrives at the conclusion that the findings on the
charges do not warrant interference, it cannot interfere with the
quantum of punishment unless the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate, such that no reasonable person, in similar
circumstances, would have imposed a penalty of removal for the
proved misconduct. It is also contended that the conduct of the
petitioner, as reflected from the three charges that have been
proved, clearly demonstrates grave misconduct on her part. The
punishment of removal is proportionate and does not suffer from
any disproportionality so as to warrant interference by this
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (10 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
Court.
14) In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the
respondents has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of U.P. Vs. Ashok
Kumar Singh, reported in 1995 Supreme (SC) 1172, (ii) Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad, reported in 2005
Supreme (SC) 147, (iii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gulam
Moho. Bhat, reported in 2005 Supreme (SC) 1371, (iv) Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Ex. No.6492086A SEP/ASH Kulbeer
Singh, reported in 2019 (13) SCC 20, (v) Union of India &
Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in 2014 Supreme (SC)
813, (vi) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Managobinda
Samantaray, reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 793 and (vii) The
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Phulpari Kumari, reported in 2019
Supreme (SC) 1334.
15) I have considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
16) This Court is conscious of the limited scope of interference
in disciplinary matters while exercising its power of judicial
review. This Court normally interferes only in cases where the
findings are perverse, where irrelevant facts have formed the
foundation of the decision, or where relevant facts or evidence
have been ignored, thereby affecting the decision-making
process, or where the order suffers from arbitrariness or a
complete violation of procedure.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (11 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
17) Dealing with the first two charges, there is no doubt that
there is evidence to the effect that the petitioner availed
Privilege Leave on 25.11.2018. This leave was not supported by
any sick certificate. The reasons assigned in the application for
grant of Privilege Leave, however, indicate that the petitioner
was suffering from a minor medical condition, namely headache
and migraine, but the same was not accompanied by any
medical certificate. This implies that the leave granted cannot be
treated as medical leave in the strict sense as required under the
applicable procedure. The petitioner was present at the
headquarters on 26.11.2018 and was fit enough to travel, as she
claims to have travelled from Kota to Delhi. At the time of
leaving the headquarters, she had the opportunity to present
herself before the Railway Medical Officer, which she failed to do.
She subsequently produced a medical certificate from a doctor at
New Delhi, which also does not relate to any serious medical
condition. As per the certificate, the petitioner was suffering
from severe migraine and had allegedly sustained an accidental
fall resulting in spondylosis. According to the petitioner, she was
advised rest by a private doctor for the said medical conditions.
The transfer order was issued on 27.11.2018, i.e., one day after
the date on which the petitioner claims to have traveled to New
Delhi. However, the petitioner has not produced any travel
documents for 26.11.2018, although the medical certificate
indicates that she received treatment in Delhi.
18) The petitioner first submitted a communication dated
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (12 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
10.12.2018 to the competent authority, explaining her medical
condition and seeking extension of leave on the basis of a
medical certificate issued by Virmani Hospital, New Delhi. Her
mother also submitted a letter dated 12.12.2018 explaining the
petitioner’s medical condition. It is also the petitioner’s case that
upon deterioration of her condition, she went to Mumbai for
specialized treatment, where doctors diagnosed her with
depression allegedly arising from stress and migraine. On this
basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
although her absence was unauthorized, it cannot be termed as
willful. It is further contended that she could not comply the
transfer order and join at the transferred place due to her
medical condition.
19) The legal position with regard to unauthorized absence, as
laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner’s counsel, is clear that every unauthorized absence
cannot be treated as willful absence. There must be specific
evidence to establish that such absence was willful, though it
may still be categorized as unauthorized absence. This Court,
upon perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority, finds that there is no specific finding to
the effect that the petitioner’s absence or disobedience of duty
was the result of willful conduct. However, upon examining the
medical records and the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that
her medical condition was not so serious so as to prevent her
from presenting herself before the Railway Medical Officer for a
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (13 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
proper assessment of whether her absence from duty was
genuinely on medical grounds. This procedure was not followed.
20) The petitioner was present at the headquarters on
26.11.2018 and was capable of travel. This indicates that she
could have visited the Railway Medical Officer, which she did not
do. Moreover, in the writ petition filed by her, which forms part of
the record, she did not initially raise the medical condition as a
ground to resist the transfer though it was later relied upon
during the disciplinary proceedings. The transfer order was
issued on 27.11.2018, and the petitioner did not join at Sawai
Madhopur thereafter. Her own case indicates that after treatment
in New Delhi, she proceeded to Mumbai for further treatment.
These facts clearly suggest that the petitioner was in a condition
fit for travel and that her medical condition was not so severe as
to prevent her from joining at the transferred place and
thereafter seeking medical examination for continuation of
treatment. The petitioner made her request for extension of
leave only on 10.12.2018.
21) It appears that her absence may have been influenced by
the pendency of her writ petition challenging the transfer order,
in which she was unsuccessful in obtaining any interim relief. The
said writ petition was later withdrawn. It further appears that, in
expectation of favourable interference by this Court, she
abstained from joining in compliance with the transfer order and
subsequently sought to justify her absence on medical grounds
supported by a private medical certificate from New Delhi.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (14 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
Considering the nature of the petitioner’s medical condition, her
ability to travel, and her failure to present herself before the
Railway Medical Officer, particularly in the context of her transfer,
these factors cumulatively indicate willful conduct. However, the
charges were framed on the premise of disobedience of the
transfer order and unauthorized absence from duty. There is no
clear finding recorded with regard to willful absence. In view of
the nature of the charges, there was no occasion for the
authorities to examine the conduct of the petitioner specifically
from the standpoint of willfulness. Nevertheless, the evidence on
record indicates that the conduct may be construed as willful.
The charge of absence requires clear evidence and a specific
finding regarding willfulness by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e.,
the Enquiry Officer. Although there is evidence on record, no
such finding has been rendered either by the Enquiry Officer or
by the Disciplinary Authority. If these were the only charges, this
Court would have exercised its power to remand the matter for
fresh consideration by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
Authority on the basis of the evidence already on record.
However, in the present case, such a course is not considered
appropriate.
22) The third charge relates to violation of conduct rules in
availing sick leave. The relevant Rules are 538 and 539 of the
Indian Railway Medical Manual, they are hereunder:-
“538. Sick certificate:-(1) When a railway
employee, who is residing within the jurisdiction of
a Railway doctor, is unable to attend duty by reason(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (15 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]of sickness, he must produce, within 48 hours, a
sick certificate from the competent Railway doctor
in the prescribed form as given in annexure XI to
this chapter.
(2) Should a Railway employee, residing within the
jurisdiction of the Railway doctor, desire to be
attended by a non-Railway doctor of his own choice,
it is not incumbent on him to place himself under
the treatment of the Railway doctor. It is however
essential that if leave of absence is required on
medical certificate, a request for such leave should
be supported by a sick certificate from the Railway
doctor.
(3) Sick certificate may be issued by the Railway
doctor of the section in which the Railway employee
resides for the time being.
(4) When a Railway employee residing outside the
jurisdiction of a Railway doctor requires leave on
medical certificate, he should submit, within 48
hours, a sick certificate from a registered medical
practitioner. Such certificate should be, as nearly
as possible, in the prescribed form as given in the
annexure XI and should state the nature of the
illness and the period for which the Railway
employee is likely to be unable to perform his
duties. The competent authority may, at it’s
discretion accept the certificate or, in cases where
it has reasons to doubt the bonafides, refer the
case to the Authorised Medical Officer for advice or
investigation. The medical certificates from the
Registered private practitioners produced by the
employee in support of their applications for leave
may be rejected by the competent authority only
after a Railway medical officer has conducted the
necessary verifications and on the basis of the
advice tendered by him after such verifications.
However, where the Railway medial officer could
not be deputed for such verifications, the
certificate from the registered private medical
practitioner may be accepted straightaway.
Note :-(i) Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of a Railway
doctor will be taken to cover Railway
employees residing within a radius of 2.5 K.M
of railway hospital or health unit to which the
doctor is attached, and within a radius of one
kilometer of a Railway station of the doctor’s
line jurisdiction.
(ii) To prevent misuse of private medical
certificates, the Divisional Railway Managers
may withdraw the privilege as given in the
concluding portion of the above sub-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (16 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
paragraph by special notification to the staff
for special periods. In respect of workshop
employees, the power to withdraw the
privilege of acceptance of certificates from
registered private practitioners shall be
exercised by the administrative officers in
J.A.G and S.A Grades.
(5) When issuing the certificates, Railway doctors
will exercise care and judgement in
recommending the period of absence for which
the Railway employee is unable to attend duty
which should be commensurate with the nature
and severity of illness.
(6) The submission of sick certificate as
prescribed in sub-para(1) to (5) above shall be
tantamount to only an application for leave on
medical certificate, and shall not be held to carry
with it permission to quit the station, unless such
permission is expressly given by the competent
Railway doctor.
Note:- (1)A Railway employee who is placed on
sick list by a Railway doctor should continue
to report to him when fit to travel, or send
intimation about his condition if he is bed-
ridden, at such intervals as directed by the
Railway doctor. If a Railway employee fails
to do so, he is liable to be discharged from
sick list for non-attendance.
(2) Special provisions for members of
Railway Protection Force reporting Sick: No
member of the Force shall be taken on sick list by
any Railway Medical Officer unless such member
comes with written reference known as ‘Sick
Memo’ from his controlling officer and also gives
declaration in triplicate as per the proforma given
at the end of this para.
The Controlling Officer shall issue ‘Sick
Memo’ to the member of the Force on demand,
whether such member is on duty or on leave at
the Headquarters. While issuing such a memo,
the controlling officer shall mention on it whether
the member is required/detailed for special duty,
under transfer order, facing DAR action and
avoiding to attend departmental enquiry or is
habitual of reporting sick, etc. In case such a
member is taken on sick list by a Railway Medical
Officer, the member shall intimate within 48
hours his controlling officer about being taken on
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (17 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
sick list and submit the Railway Medical
Certificate to the controlling officer.
The Railway Medical Officer taking the staff on
sick list shall send one copy of the declaration as
indicated in this rule to the controlling officer of
the member, the second copy of the declaration
will be kept by him for his record and the third
copy will be handed over to the member of the
Force along with Railway Medical Certificate and
the member of the Force will submit the same to
his controlling officer along with Railway Medical
Certificate.
Provided that the member who, due to
emergency, is not able to take ‘Sick Memo’ from
his controlling officer, may directly report to
Railway Medical Officer for treatment. The
member will have to inform the Railway Medical
Officer immediately, if he wants to report sick and
give the declaration as given at the end of this
paragraph in triplicate. In case the member is
taken on sick list as outdoor patient, it shall be
obligatory for the member to get a ‘Sick Memo’
from his controlling officer and submit the same
to the Railway Medical Officer. If the member is
taken on sick list as indoor patient, the Railway
Medical Officer shall intimate the controlling
officer by sending him a copy of the declaration
and the controlling officer will issue ‘Sick Memo’
on receipt of the declaration from the Railway
Medical Officer. The sick certificate, in any case,
will be issued on receipt of sick memo from the
controlling officer or any other equivalent or
higher official.
Provided further that if a member is on
leave or on duty away from his Headquarters, he
may take ‘Sick Memo’ from the in-charge of the
nearest Railway Protection Force post/out post or
from Station Master/Assistant Station Master, if
no Railway Protection Force post/out-post is
located nearby. The incharge of Railway
Protection Force post/out-post or Station Master/
Assistant Station Master issuing a ‘Sick Memo’ as
mentioned above shall intimate the controlling
officer of the member immediately. In case the
member is taken on sick list as outdoor patient,
he will immediately intimate his controlling officer
about this fact. The attending Railway Medical
Officer shall examine the member with a view to
find out if the member is fit to travel up to his
Headquarters, if so, he will issue fit to travel
certificate.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (18 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
If a member is found to be habitually
reporting sick usually on occasion of his
deployment to special duty or on refusal of leave
he may be sent for special medical examination
by competent authority to ascertain as to the
genuineness of the illness.
Wherever there are more than one doctor in
the hospital/Health Unit/OPD (Outdoor Patient
Department), the issuance of Railway Medical
Certificate for the RPF shall be dealt with only by
one authorised doctor to be nominated by the in-
charge of the Hospital/Divisional In-charge.
Ordinarily no Railway Medical Certificate
shall be issued for more than 7 days at a time
unless a member is admitted in the hospital as an
indoor patient. Similarly, after discharge from the
hospital, a member shall not be kept on sick list
for more than 14 days at a time.
Provided that in certain circumstances if the
Medical Officer concerned is of the opinion that
the patient will have to be kept as an OPD
(Outdoor Patient Department) case for domiciliary
treatment for a longer period, the same may be
done but a detailed report will have to be sent
about such patient to the Chief Medical
Superintendent/Medical Superintendent in-charge
of the division endorsing a copy of the same to
the controlling officer of the patient:-
A member who has been issued Railway
Medical Certificate shall be examined regularly
during the period of sickness by the Railway
Medical Officers.
A member of the Force on sick list shall not
leave his place of treatment without the written
approval of the leave sanctioning authority except
for such exercise as may be prescribed and
notified in the order by the Railway Medical
Officer.
To matters not covered under foregoing
rules, extant provisions of Railway Rule/Indian
Railway Medical Manual shall apply.
xxx xxx xxx
“539. Continuation sick certificate:- (1)
When a Railway doctor who has issued a sick
certificate for a prescribed period in the first
instance finds that the illness of the employee is(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (19 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]likely to result in the absence of the employee
from duty beyond the period prescribed in the
original sick certificate, he will issue immediately
a continuation sick certificate in the prescribed
form as given in the annexure XII to this
chapter. The certificates should be serially
numbered.
(2) When a Railway employee who is residing
outside the jurisdiction of the authorised medical
officer and is under the treatment of a non-
Railway registered medical practitioner requires
further extension of leave, he should submit a
continuation certificate from the non-Railway
medical practitioner to the competent authority
who may at his discretion accept the certificate
or refer the case to the Railway medical officer
for advice or investigation and then deal with it
as circumstances may require.”
22.1) A glance at Rule 538 makes it clear that every railway
employee is required to obtain a sick certificate from the
jurisdictional Railway Doctor when he or she is unable to attend
duty due to sickness, within 48 hours, along with an application.
The Rule further provides that it is not compulsory for the
employee to undergo treatment from the jurisdictional Railway
Doctor; the employee may also take treatment from a non-
railway doctor. However, the employee is still required to obtain
a sick certificate from a Railway Doctor. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 538
also clarifies that temporary residence within the jurisdiction of a
Railway Doctor entitles the employee to obtain a sick certificate
from such a doctor. Sub-rule (4) deals with a situation where an
employee is residing outside the jurisdiction of a Railway Doctor
and such a doctor is not available. In such a case, the employee
is required to obtain a sick certificate from a registered medical
practitioner, which shall be forwarded to the competent authority
along with an application for grant of leave. The competent
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (20 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
authority is then required to refer the same to the jurisdictional
Railway Doctor for verification of the medical condition. If the
doctor is satisfied, the competent authority may grant leave. In
such circumstances, the competent authority has no jurisdiction
to differ with the medical opinion and reject the application for
extension of leave on that ground.
23) The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner was outside the jurisdiction of the
Railway Doctor and had submitted a medical leave application
along with a sick certificate issued by a registered private
practitioner. It is argued that the competent authority, without
referring the matter to the Railway Doctor, rejected the request,
which is in violation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 538 of the Indian
Railway Medical Manual. This argument is unsustainable. When
the petitioner proceeded on leave on 26.11.2018, she was at her
headquarters and could have presented herself before the
Railway Doctor to obtain a sick certificate. Therefore, she was
not outside the jurisdiction so as to claim the benefit under sub-
rule (4) of Rule 538. The Rules also permit an employee to
obtain a sick certificate from a Railway Medical Officer at the
place of temporary residence. It is not the case of the petitioner
that no such Railway Medical Officer was available in Delhi.
24) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to the Note under sub-rule (4) of Rule
538, which defines the radius of jurisdiction of a Railway Doctor
for issuing a sick certificate. According to him, there is no
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (21 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
evidence to show that a Railway Doctor was available within the
prescribed radius for obtaining a sick certificate. The petitioner is
required to establish that she had no access to such a Railway
Doctor within the prescribed radius. However, this is not the case
pleaded by the petitioner. Therefore, the note cannot be used to
claim that the petitioner has complied with the procedure. The
evidence on record clearly demonstrates non-compliance with
the procedure for obtaining a sick certificate. There is a special
provision under Rule 538 applicable to the Railway Protection
Force. The procedure is more stringent compared to that
applicable to other railway employees. For a member of the
Force to be placed on the sick list, the reference must come from
the Controlling Officer. The Controlling Officer is required to
make an endorsement regarding attendance in a disciplinary
proceedings, or the employee under transfer, so as to assess
whether the claim is genuine or intended to avoid such
proceedings. This procedure has not been followed in the present
case. The findings of all the authorities regarding the charges do
not require any interference.
25) The authorities have proceeded to impose the punishment
of removal. The entire genesis of the petitioner’s absence from
duty appears to be connected with the transfer order and the
pendency of the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner,
when examined in light of the evidence on record, prima facie
indicates willful conduct. However, there is no clear finding by
the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority that the absence
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (22 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
was willful so as to constitute disobedience amounting to grave
misconduct. In fact, it is a case of remand on Charge Nos. 1 and
2 but the fact of the matter is that the petitioner, a Constable,
had rendered 16 years of service prior to her removal. It is also
well settled that in a disciplined force, maintenance of discipline
is of paramount importance. The petitioner was serving in such a
disciplined force, and strict compliance with the Conduct Rules is
expected. At the same time, this Court is conscious that judicial
review in matters of punishment is limited. Even where the Court
finds that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, and no
reasonable disciplinary authority would have imposed such
punishment in the given circumstances, the Court ordinarily
would not substitute its own decision but would remit the matter
to the Disciplinary/Appointing Authority for reconsideration.
However, this rule is not absolute and admits of exceptions. In
rarest of rare cases, the Court may itself assume the role of the
Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, in order to avoid
further delay that would be caused by remanding the matter on
both the charges and the punishment, this Court considers it
appropriate to exercise such power and modify the punishment.
Such modification is warranted in the facts and circumstances of
the case. Although Charges Nos.1 and 2 are of a serious nature
and the evidence prima facie suggests willful conduct, however,
there is no definitive finding to that effect. In normal
circumstances, the matter would have been remanded for fresh
consideration. However, to bring finality to the proceedings, this
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17600] (23 of 23) [CW-12444/2020]
Court adopts a lenient view and proceeds to impose a lesser
punishment.
26) Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the view that the punishment of removal imposed on an
employee who had rendered 16 years of service, on account of
the conduct underlying the charges, is shockingly
disproportionate, particularly with regard to the third charge.
Since there is prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s willful
conduct, remanding the matter would only prolong the litigation,
unnecessarily cause additional burden and mental agony to the
petitioner, as well unnecessary burden on the respondents.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise its power treating
this case as rarest of rare case to modify the punishment.
27) In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed by
modifying the punishment of removal to that of compulsory
retirement. The date of removal shall be treated as the date of
the petitioner’s compulsory retirement, and all benefits available
to a retired employee as on that date shall be extended to the
petitioner. Final conclusion on charges is not interfered.
28) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
29) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 12:20:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:42:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)