Habitual unauthorized absence despite prior leniency and penalties justifies dismissal from service.

The appellant was appointed as a Plant Attendant at Bhilai Steel Plant in 1999

Following a charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 alleging habitual unauthorized absence, a departmental enquiry was conducted where the appellant admitted the charges.

Consequently, he was terminated on 18.03.2005.

The appellant's service record revealed three prior major/minor penalties for absences totaling 378 days across 2000–2003.

The appellant challenged the termination before the Labour Court, Durg, and subsequently the Industrial Court, Raipur; both authorities dismissed his pleas.

A Writ Petition (WPL No. 4742 of 2011) was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 05.02.2026.

1. Whether the disciplinary punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence, considering the appellant's medical circumstances

2. Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated due to alleged coercion in obtaining the admission of guilt and violation of principles of natural justice

3. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, were applicable over the Certified Standing Orders

The Court primarily applied the principle that the quantum of punishment falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority unless it "shocks the conscience of the Court"

It relied on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, which establishes that prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes grave misconduct reflecting lack of devotion to duty

Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of laches, citing that inordinate delay in approaching the court disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227

Regarding the applicability of rules, it held that establishments governed by the Central Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, are not bound by the M.P. State Rules of 1963

The Court found that the appellant was a "habitual absentee" with a chequered record, having failed to improve despite multiple previous penalties for identical misconduct

The Court rejected the claim of coerced admission, noting it was an "afterthought" as it was never raised before the Labour or Industrial Courts

On the merits of the absence, the Court determined that the offered medical explanations failed to account for the entire duration of the repeated absences

Applying the T.T. Murali Babu precedent, the Court reasoned that the appellant's incorrigibility justified the extreme penalty of dismissal, and thus the punishment was not disproportionate

Additionally, the Court noted the appellant’s four-year delay in filing the writ petition after the Industrial Court's order as a significant factor against granting relief

The Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court, the Industrial Court, and the Single Judge, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to discretionary relief due to both the gravity of the misconduct and the unexplained delay in filing the petition. The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded