Absence Due To Prolonged Illness Not Wilful Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Termination
While setting aside termination order of a deceased-employee, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the absence of an employee owing to a prolonged illness did not amount to wilful absence that could attract imposition of penalty. For context, the petitioner's husband was working as a constable in 1979...
While setting aside termination order of a deceased-employee, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the absence of an employee owing to a prolonged illness did not amount to wilful absence that could attract imposition of penalty.
For context, the petitioner's husband was working as a constable in 1979 and suffering from Tuberculosis (TB). Hence, he was not in a position to discharge his duties in a regular manner. Eventually a departmental inquiry was instituted against him alleging wilful absence of 57 days.
A detailed response was submitted by the deceased with document regarding his illness, however, an enquiry office was appointed. During enquiry, two witnesses had categorically deposed that the deceased was suffering from TB and thus was not in a position to appear.
Despite the same, the enquiry report held that the deceased was guilty of the charges that resulted in his termination.
It was the case of the petitioner that her husband's absence was owing to his illness, and hence was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner further argued that no copy of the enquiry report was provided to the deceased.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Krushnakat B. Parmar v. Union of India in which it was held that,
“…for sustaining allegations of failure to maintain devotion to duty due to absence and conduct unbecoming of government servant and dismissal based thereupon it must be proved that unauthorized absence was willful. If absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct”
A further reference was made to the Apex Court decision in Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank, Pali and Others in which it was held that to hold a person guilty of unauthorized absence from duty, the unauthorized absence had to be wilful and deliberate.
In this background, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased's absence was not wilful but owing to his prolonged illness. Hence, although the charge of unauthorized absence was levelled against him, the State could not establish that his absence was wilful.
Furthermore, the Court also took into account the fact that no enquiry report was provided to the deceased before the penalty was imposed.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner-wife to be entitled of all service/retiral benefits.
Title: Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403