Unauthorised Absence Must Be Wilful To Justify Dismissal; Disproportionate If Due To Illness: Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The respondent (employee) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. After serving for three years, he fell seriously ill. Then he proceeded on leave for a proper medical check-up. The doctor informed him that he was suffering from acute depression. He was advised to take proper treatment. Therefore, the employee sent an application for extension of leave through registered post to the District Superintendent of Education as well as to the Principal of the school where he was posted.

The employee was declared medically fit after a gap of nearly seven years. Then he approached the school to rejoin his duties. However, the Principal refused to allow him to join. The employee then approached several authorities but could not succeed. His claim for rejoining was rejected by the authorities. Aggrieved, he filed a writ application before the High Court seeking a direction to allow him to rejoin.

The dismissal order was quashed by the High Court. However, the State was given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the employee under the Jharkhand Service Code. Hence, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him containing three charges. The enquiry officer submitted a report wherein two out of three charges were not proved. Regarding the charge of absenteeism, officer submitted that it required consideration due to the sympathetic situation.

Despite this, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the employee challenged the dismissal order before the High Court. It was held by the single judge that the employee was absent due to compelling circumstances and it was not a willful absenteeism. Hence, the order of punishment was quashed.

Aggrieved by the same, the State filed an appeal against single judge's order.

It was argued by the State that as per the enquiry report, the charges against the employee were duly proved. It was further argued that under Rule 76 of the Service Code, this was the only punishment possible. Therefore, the order passed by the Single Judge directing reconsideration of the matter on the question of quantum of punishment was completely without any basis.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent-employee that his absenteeism was not willful but was due to compelling medical circumstances.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the enquiry officer held that charge nos. (i) and (ii) were not proved. Regarding charge no. (iii) of absenteeism, the enquiry officer submitted that it required consideration in view of the position that the employee was suffering from mental illness. It was further observed by the Court that the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal without properly appreciating that the absenteeism was not willful.

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr., it was held that if an allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence was willful.

It was found that the State had failed to demonstrate that the absence was willful. It was further observed that the employee had gone on leave on doctor's advice. He was suffering from acute depression, therefore, he sent a letter for extension of leave, and joined immediately after receiving a fitness certificate. It was held by the Division Bench that the absenteeism was not willful and it was due to compelling circumstances.

It was held by the Court that the Single Judge had rightly quashed the order of punishment treating it to be unduly harsh. The State was directed to reconsider the case of the employee for inflicting a lesser punishment other than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Nandu Ram

Case No. : L.P.A No. 142 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II

Counsel for the Respondent : Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate