Removal from service for prolonged unauthorized absenteeism is a proportionate penalty and does not violate principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner joined the Respondent insurance company (a "State" under Article 12) as an Assistant in 1995

Between 2014 and 2017, the Petitioner remained absent from duty for a prolonged period, initially citing family health issues and later her own medical conditions, including fibroids and chronic fissures

Despite several reminders and show-cause notices sent by the Respondent between February 2014 and September 2014, the Petitioner failed to resume duties or provide sufficient medical evidence

On March 29, 2017, the Respondent issued a Charge Memo under Rule 25 of the CDA Rules, 2014, alleging unauthorized absence for 993 days and willful insubordination

The Petitioner did not submit a written defense or participate in the inquiry, leading to ex-parte proceedings

Consequently, the Appointing Authority passed an order of "removal from service" on January 10, 2018, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director

The Petitioner challenged these orders via a Writ Petition under Article 226

1. Whether the departmental inquiry and the subsequent orders of removal were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the CDA Rules, 2014

2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence

The court primarily applied the National Insurance Company (Conduct, Discipline Appeal) Rules, 2014, specifically Rule 4 (defining misconduct including habitual absence) and Rule 25 (procedure for imposing major penalties)

It relied on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) as interpreted in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, which necessitates adequate notice but allows ex-parte proceedings if the delinquent refuses to participate

The court further applied the "Doctrine of Proportionality" in service law, citing Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, which holds that interference is only warranted if the punishment shocks the conscience of the court

It also referenced North-Eastern Karnataka Rt. Corpn. v. Ashappa, establishing that prolonged unauthorized absence is a grave misconduct, not a minor one

The Court observed that the Petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to resume work and defend the charges, but she chose to remain silent and absent during the inquiry

The Court rejected the Petitioner's plea of medical hardship, noting that medical certificates were submitted as an afterthought only after the penalty was imposed and did not justify an absence of over 1,280 days

Regarding the "Rule of Law," the Court found that the Respondent followed the CDA Rules by serving the Charge Memo via speed post, which constituted valid service

The Court distinguished several precedents cited by the Petitioner, such as Krushnakant B. Parmar, noting that unlike those cases, there was no evidence here that the Petitioner was prevented from attending duty by the management

Finally, applying the proportionality test, the Court held that for a financial institution/insurance company, an employee’s absence for nearly three years without intimation constitutes a gross breach of discipline, making the penalty of removal entirely commensurate with the misconduct

The Court directly answered the issues by stating that the Petitioner’s long, unexplained absenteeism for 1,280 days was a serious misconduct that justified removal from service

The final holding affirmed the orders dated January 10, 2018, April 11, 2018, and February 6, 2019; all prayers for reinstatement, back wages, and arrears were denied

No costs were awarded