2025:KER:18650 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.33835 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: R.S. SOUMYA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O BALASUNDARAM, (NOW DIVORCED), EX-WOMAN CONSTABLE/RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE/SOUTHERN RAILWAY/ TRIVANDRUM, KUDANTHARA KIZHAKATHU THAZHAM, CHATHANOOR.P.O., KOLLAM - 691 572, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: “SWASTHIKAM’, HOUSE NO.28, KOTHETHU NAGAR, NEAR S.V.TALKIES, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691008 BY ADVS. T.C.GOVINDASWAMY KALA T.GOPI KAILESH T. GOPI NISHITHA BALACHANDRAN RAHUL R. MAMATHA S. ANILKUMAR 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 2 RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN IA/OP : 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI, PIN - 600003 2 THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695014 3 THE CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY/RAILWAY HOSPITAL, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695037 4 THE CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY/RAILWAY HOSPITAL, MADURAI, PIN - 625010 5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 6 THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, MOORE MARKET COMPLEX, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI, PIN - 600003 7 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, MOORE MARKET COMPLEX, PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI, PIN - 600003 BY ADV T. V. VINU (CGC) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT AMIT RAWAL, J. C. M Application No. 1 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, delay of 54 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. WA NO. 380 OF 2025 Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 21.11.2024 in WPC No.33835/2018 preferred by the appellant/petitioner, whereby the challenge laid to the action of the respondents in modifying the penalty to compulsory retirement, has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that, owing to the knee surgery, the appellant, belonging to the Railway Protection Force, had obtained a medical certificate dated 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 4 09.09.2015 valid upto 02.12.2015. Thereafter, was required to approach the authorities for further certification. But despite numerous representations, which were duly replied as per the admission of the appellant, request to continue the treatment from other hospitals without certification, was not accepted. Ultimately, her absence was considered unauthorized from 02.12.2015 till serving of the charge sheet in June 2016. Though the appellant/petitioner had enclosed the copies of medical treatment along with the representations, had never sought extension of the sick leave or even extension of the medical certificate by getting herself examined in the Railway Hospital at Madurai, which the department never refused to. Though the charge sheet did not contain the charge of leaving the country without permission from 28.04.2016 to 08.05.2016, but the fact remains that the appellant had, during this period, gone abroad. All these factors did not weigh in the mind 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 5 of the authorities as well as the Single Bench. 3. Adv.Kala T. Gopi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that, as numerous representations were made, accompanied by medical certificates, nothing prevented the department from extending the sick certification without being re-examined from a competent railway authority, ie., the Railway hospital at Madurai or at any other Railway hospital. It cannot be considered to be a mandate in case the person is unable to get themselves examined for the purpose of extension of the sick certificate. Therefore, such a harsh action of punishing with compulsory retirement in appeal cannot be permitted to prevail, as the petitioner/appellant could have been served with a lesser punishment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Vinu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, Rule 603 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code was 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 6 specifically mentioned in Ext.P11 letter dated 17.05.2016, but the same was also not complied with by the petitioner in letter and spirit, though in Ext.P12, the petitioner/appellant had relied upon Rule 521 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code to contend that the medical certificate from a registered private practitioner, produced by the railway servant, cannot be rejected for the purpose of grant of leave. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 6. No doubt the petitioner/appellant was granted sick certificate from 09.09.2015 till 02.12.2015. However, even thereafter, if she was suffering, was required to get the certificate extended by examining herself in the concerned hospital. The petitioner/appellant had relied upon Rule 521, but the fact remains that, none of her representations attached to the writ petition or submitted before this Court, reveal that request that granting of leave or certificate should 2025:KER:18650 WA NO. 380 OF 2025 7 be issued. The factum of leaving the country for the period aforementioned was not brought to the notice of the department, therefore, was not a part of the charge sheet, as it surfaced later on. Such conduct of the appellant/petitioner, belonging to a disciplinary force, cannot be pardoned and rightly so, has been compulsorily retired. We do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge. No ground for interference is made out. Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE msp