Unauthorised Absence & Major Penalty of Compulsory Retirement

Unauthorised Absence & Major Penalty of Compulsory Retirement

The petitioner had applied for casual leave and leave on average pay to attend his aged major and duly intimated to the authority.  Merely because the leave was not sanctioned, the same would not ipso facto renders his absence wilful.

The punishment imposed bears little proportion to the misconduct alleged. The authorities appear to have treated the Petitioner’s absence as an infraction warranting the severest possible civil consequences short of  dismissal or removal. Such an approach overlooks not only the surrounding circumstances under which the absence occurred but also the Petitioner’s long tenure of service, his physical condition and the absence of any finding that his conduct was actuated by deliberate defiance of authority. The resultant punishment, therefore, travels beyond the realm of disciplinary correction and enters the domain of disproportionality.

At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that non-sanction of leave and wilful absence from duty are not synonymous expressions. Merely because leave sought for by an employee is declined or remains unsanctioned, it does not inexorably follow that the employee’s absence thereafter becomes deliberate, contumacious or wilful. The disciplinary authority is still required to examine the explanation furnished by the employee and arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether the absence was intentional and without any justifiable cause. The refusal of leave may establish the factum of unauthorised absence; however, it does not by itself establish the misconduct flowing from such absence.

The news in The New India Express and the Judgment dated 6.7.2026 of the High Court of Orissa in  Writ Petition (Civil) No.40736 of 2021 of Jaya Chandra Mishra  Vs.  Union of India and others

T