Dismissal for unauthorized absence is unsustainable unless the absenteeism is proven to be willful.

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on December 31, 1999

After three years of service, he suffered from acute depression and remained on medical leave for approximately seven years, during which he allegedly sent leave extension applications via registered post

Upon being declared fit in 2012, his rejoining was refused. Following an earlier round of litigation (W.P.(S) No. 4225 of 2014), the High Court quashed his initial dismissal but granted the State liberty to conduct a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 74(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code

In the subsequent inquiry, the respondent was exonerated of two charges, while the third charge—absenteeism—was proved, though the inquiry officer noted the respondent's mental illness required sympathetic consideration

The disciplinary authority again dismissed the respondent effective from 2004. The learned Single Judge quashed this order, directing the State to reconsider a punishment other than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement

1. Whether the respondent’s seven-year absence from duty could be classified as "willful" misconduct warranting dismissal under Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the proved charge of absenteeism considering the respondent's medical condition

Rule 76(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code, which permits removal for unauthorized absence exceeding five years, provided the prescribed disciplinary procedures are followed

M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., establishing that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal and require evidence to prove a charge

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr., which mandates that for unauthorized absence to constitute misconduct, the disciplinary authority must prove the absence was "willful" and not due to compelling circumstances beyond the employee's control

The court observed that while the respondent was absent for seven years, the appellants failed to demonstrate that such absence was "willful"

It noted that the respondent provided evidence of suffering from acute depression and had submitted fitness certificates upon his return, indicating the absence was due to "compelling circumstances" rather than intentional negligence

The court highlighted that the inquiry officer had already exonerated the respondent of two of the three charges and recommended a sympathetic view regarding the absenteeism

Consequently, the court reasoned that the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate with the nature of the charge and was "unduly harsh" given the respondent's mental health history

The court found no merit in the State's argument that Rule 76 mandated dismissal as the only possible outcome, emphasizing that judicial review allows interference when a punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct

The court upheld the Single Judge’s order quashing the dismissal and affirmed the direction to the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s case for the infliction of a lesser punishment—specifically one other than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement

All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed