Unauthorized Absence For Over Three Years Cannot Be Treated As Minor Misconduct: Bombay High Court Upholds Removal Of Insurance Employee

"Remaining absent for a long time cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The entire conduct of the Petitioner shows that she was never interested in attending her duties and even assuming she was suffering from ill-health, she chose not to keep the management in the loop," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 20, 2026, held that prolonged and unauthorized absence from duty for over three years constitutes gross misconduct that warrants removal from service.

A bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that the doctrine of proportionality is not attracted when the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of long-term absenteeism. The Court emphasized that an employee cannot claim sympathy for their own wrongs, especially when they fail to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.

The Petitioner, Neha Nilesh Sawant, a Senior Assistant with National Insurance Co. Ltd., was removed from service following a departmental inquiry that found her unauthorizedly absent for 993 days. While she claimed her absence was due to severe health issues like Polymenorrhagia and fibroid surgery, the management issued several reminders between 2014 and 2017 which went unheeded. After an ex-parte inquiry was conducted due to her non-participation, the Appointing Authority passed an order of removal, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

The primary question before the court was whether the removal from service on account of 993 days of unauthorized absence was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The court was also called upon to determine if the ex-parte inquiry proceedings and subsequent orders violated the principles of natural justice under the National Insurance (CDA) Rules, 2014.

Gross Misconduct And Lack Of Interest In Duty

The Court expressed that the case represented a gross instance of misconduct on the ground of illegal absenteeism which could not be condoned. It noted that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in attending her duties, regardless of her health claims. The bench remarked that the petitioner continued to remain absent with impunity without keeping the management informed.

"This is a gross case of misconduct on the ground of illegal absenteeism on the part of the Petitioner, which under no circumstances can be condoned or given the imprimatur of law."

Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice

The bench rejected the petitioner’s contention that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It noted that all notices and charge memos were duly served upon her, yet she chose not to respond or participate in the hearings. The Court found that the disciplinary authorities had followed the due process of law as envisaged under the CDA Rules, 2014.

Court Explains Duty To Participate In Inquiry

The judges observed that the petitioner was given fifteen days to file a reply to the charge memo but failed to do so. Even after receiving the inquiry report, she delayed her response significantly. The Court held that when an employee chooses not to participate despite notice, they cannot later cry foul about the lack of a fair hearing.

"The impugned orders have categorically held that the Petitioner herself chose to remain absent and not participate in the enquiry proceedings... it would be incorrect to contend that the orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice."

Medical Grounds Deemed An Afterthought

Regarding the petitioner's medical justifications, the Court observed that the medical certificates were produced belatedly and appeared to be an afterthought. The bench noted that the petitioner failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence during the period of absence or during the inquiry. It held that the nature of the illness described did not justify a three-year total absence from work without communication.

Absence Without Sanctioned Leave Not A Minor Offense

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in North-Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Ashappa, noting that remaining absent for a long duration cannot be treated as a minor misconduct. It emphasized that such indiscipline cannot be treated lightly by the judiciary or the employer, as it affects the organizational structure and performance.

"Remaining absent for a long time cannot be said to be a minor misconduct... The misconduct committed by the Respondent could not be treated lightly."

Doctrine Of Proportionality Not Shaken

Addressing the quantum of punishment, the Court held that the doctrine of proportionality only applies when a punishment "shocks the conscience" of the court. In this case, the removal was deemed commensurate with the misconduct. The bench cited Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, reiterating that prolonged absence without adequate reasons shows clear indiscipline.

Final Directions And Dismissal

The Court concluded that the petitioner had exhausted her leave balance and remained on loss of pay for over 1,280 days by the time the penalty order was issued. Finding no merit in the challenge against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The bench clarified that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as she was responsible for her own predicament.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026