Dismissal From Service For Being Absent From Place Of Work For Just Few Hours Is Disproportionate: Bombay HC
Dismissal From Service for Short Absence: Bombay High Court’s View on Proportionality — Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Core Issue
Whether terminating an employee for being absent from their place of work for just a few hours is a just and proportionate disciplinary action.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that such harsh punishment is disproportionate and against principles of natural justice and fairness.
2. Judicial Reasoning and Case Law Principles
A. Doctrine of Proportionality
Courts insist that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct.
Minor breaches, such as being absent for a few hours without proper sanction, do not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal.
Punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and consider the employee’s service record, intent, and impact of absence.
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh emphasized the principle of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings.
B. Principle of Natural Justice
The employee must be given a fair opportunity to explain the reasons for absence.
A sudden or trivial absence without malafide intent should not result in summary dismissal.
Reasonable leniency is required, especially in cases of short or inadvertent absence.
The Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reinforced the need to follow natural justice before imposing dismissal.
C. Scope for Lesser Punishment
Before resorting to dismissal, courts recommend exploring lesser disciplinary actions like warnings, suspension, or fine.
This approach preserves the employment relationship and avoids harsh consequences for trivial misconduct.
In The Management of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, the Court observed that dismissal is the last resort.
D. Consideration of Past Conduct and Circumstances
The employee’s length of service, previous disciplinary record, and circumstances of absence are relevant.
An isolated incident of short absence should not overshadow an otherwise good service record.
The Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Dr. Kiran Khare held that a single minor lapse cannot justify dismissal.
3. Summary Table of Judicial Findings
| Principle | Judicial Finding | Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|
| Proportionality of punishment | Punishment must match the gravity of misconduct | State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh |
| Natural justice | Fair hearing and consideration before dismissal | Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel |
| Lesser punishment as alternative | Explore warnings or suspension before dismissal | Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen |
| Consideration of past conduct | Past good service and circumstances matter | Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Kiran Khare |
4. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court has emphasized that dismissal for mere short absence from work (a few hours) is disproportionate and unjustified.
Courts insist on proportionality, fairness, and adherence to natural justice before imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal.
The employer must consider less severe disciplinary actions and the employee’s overall service record.
This approach ensures balance between discipline and fairness in employment relations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments