Punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence caused by illness is disproportionate and warrants modification.

The husband of Petitioner No. 1 (the deceased employee) was a government servant who remained absent from duty starting August 11, 2004, citing severe illness.

Despite submitting leave applications and a medical certificate recommending 28 days of rest, the respondents placed him under suspension on October 4, 2004, and initiated departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence.

The inquiry officer found the charges proved, and the District and Sessions Judge, Katni, passed an order of removal from service on September 20, 2005.

The employee filed a statutory appeal after a six-year delay, citing prolonged mental illness, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on July 30, 2014, on technical grounds of delay.

The employee died in 2016, and his legal heirs pursued this writ petition challenging the dismissal and the appellate order.

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the merits of the medical condition.

2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absence under the circumstances.

The court primarily applied Rule 15(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates the recording of reasons for imposing penalties as a substantive safeguard against arbitrariness.

It relied on Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, which establishes that unauthorized absence does not amount to "willful misconduct" if caused by compelling circumstances like illness.

Furthermore, it applied the principle of "proportionality" in punishments as laid down in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, holding that a reasonable employer must consider the degree of misconduct before imposing the extreme penalty of removal.

The Court observed that while the employee was technically absent without authorization, the record contained a medical certificate and a prescription indicating a history of illness.

The Court noted that the employee’s death shortly after dismissal reinforced the contention that he suffered from a genuine, continuing medical ailment.

The Court found that the appellate authority erred by dismissing the appeal on technical delay rather than affording an opportunity to substantiate the medical claims.

Applying the "reasonable employer" test, the Court reasoned that the absence was not shown to be willful misconduct but rather a result of illness; therefore, the punishment of dismissal was "grossly disproportionate" and "unduly harsh" given the nature of the infractions.

It held that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the penalty to the withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The Court ordered that the period from the date of termination (October 4, 2004) to the date of death (June 20, 2016) be treated as 'dies non', disentitling the petitioner to back wages for that period, but directed notional restoration for pensionary benefits.