Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Neha Nilesh Sawan - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2254 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. A. D. Shetty a/w P. G. Sawant
For the Respondent : Mr. Amol Gatne

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. D. Shetty, P. G. Sawant
For the Respondents: Amol Gatne

Prolonged unauthorized absence over 3 years without intimation or proof is gross misconduct justifying removal; Non-participation after ample opportunities does not violate natural justice; Penalty proportionate, no judicial interference.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - National Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2014 - Rules 4(7), 4(8), 18(1), 18(2), 25, 31-34, 40 - Prolonged unauthorized absence from duty exceeding 993 days without permission, intimation or contemporaneous medical proof constitutes gross misconduct of wilful insubordination, disobedience and irregular attendance; Multiple pre-charge letters, charge memo and inquiry notices provided ample opportunity to respond and participate; Non-submission of defence or attendance leading to ex-parte proceedings does not violate principles of natural justice; Penalty of removal from service (not disqualifying future employment) proportionate to misconduct and not shocking conscience; Subsequent medical certificates post-penalty and non-resumption despite fitness certification reject sympathy pleas. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 28, 29)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Adequate notice via charge memo specifying 15 days for written statement, list of documents/witnesses; Failure to reply or attend hearings after reminders permits ex-parte inquiry; Copy of inquiry report furnished with opportunity for comments before penalty; Appellate and memorial authorities review records dispassionately upholding findings. (Paras 8, 10, 30)

(C) Proportionality of Punishment - Long unauthorized absence (over 3 years, 1280 loss of pay days) after exhausting leave not minor misconduct; Distinguished from cases of shorter absence, participation or proved bias; No interference where punishment commensurate with gravity. (Paras 14, 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
Employee joined service as Assistant in 1995, promoted Senior Assistant in 2013; Absent from 22.04.2014 without permission/intimation citing health/family issues; Multiple letters (2014-2015) and show-cause (2015) to resume/explain ignored; Attended sporadically (e.g., June-July 2015, April 2016) but continued irregular; Charge memo (29.03.2017) for 993 loss of pay days; No reply/participation in inquiry (July 2017), ex-parte findings proved charges; Penalty removal (10.01.2018), appeal rejected (11.04.2018), memorial rejected (06.02.2019); Writ challenging orders for natural justice violation, disproportionate penalty, sympathy on health grounds.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders passed following due process; Employee's conduct shows disinterest in duties; Medical pleas unsubstantiated contemporaneously, submitted belatedly; No violation of natural justice or perversity warranting interference.

Issues: Whether impugned disciplinary orders imposing removal for unauthorized prolonged absence violate due process, natural justice or proportionality; Whether health/family issues justify absenteeism without proof/intimation.

Ratio Decidendi: Gross misconduct of prolonged unauthorized absence cannot be condoned; Opportunities given via repeated notices negate natural justice breach; Employee's non-cooperation leads to valid ex-parte proceedings; Punishment proportionate given 3+ years absence without justification; Appellate review limited, no substitution unless perverse.

Result: Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges removal for prolonged unauthorized absenteeism. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argue natural justice violation in disciplinary inquiry. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. impugned orders followed cda rules and due process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. petitioner's precedents inapplicable due to factual distinctions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. prolonged absence is gross misconduct warranting dismissal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

(PER AARTI SATHE, J.)

1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner challenging the departmental inquiry held against her pursuant to the Memo of Charges dated 29^th March 2017, the order dated 10^th January 2018 passed by the Regional Manager and Appointing Authority of Respondent No.1- National Insurance Company Limited, order dated 11^th April 2018 passed by Respondent No.2-Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority and the final order dated 6^th February 2019 passed by Respondent No.3-Chairman-cum- Managing Director imposing penalty and removal from service with immediate effect from the service of Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the impugned orders”). The prayers as made by the Petitioner in the present Petition read thus:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other order, writ or direction calling for the records and proceeding of the Departmental Inquiry held against the Petitioner pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 29.03.2017, issued to her and be please to quashed and set aside Order dated 10.01.2018 (Exh. K) passed by Regional Manager and Appointing Authority of Respondent No.1 thereby imposing penalty of removal of service with immediate effect and further quashed and set aside the Order dated 11.04.2018 (Exh.M) passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting Appeal filed by the Applicant and further quashed and set aside Order dated 06.02.2019 (Exh. O) passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the Memorial of the Petitioner.

(b)That this Hon'ble be pleased to direct Respondents to allow Petitioner to resume her duty alongwith all the back wages / Salary and all the monetary benefit during the period of her absenteeism and during the period of Departmental Inquiry conducted against her.

(c)That this Hon'ble Court may please to direct Respondent to release in favour of Petitioner all her arrears of pay revision due from the year2013 till date.

(d) Pending and hearing final disposal of the present Petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and implementation of the Order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Appointing Authority imposing penalty of 'removal of service' and to allow petitioner to resume on duty.”

2. Briefly the facts are as under:-

i. The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 1 as an Assistant on 3^rd April 1995, at its Divisional Office No. 14 situated at Fort, Mumbai. The Respondent No.1 is an Insurance Company incorporated under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby making it amenable for an appropriate writ to be issued by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ii. It is the petitioner’s contention that between 2008 to 2010, she started suffering from Polymenorrhagia cum huge post wall fibroid, and was operated upon for the aforesaid illness.

iii. The Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in September 2013. It is the Petitioner’s contention that she rendered services to the best of her ability during the said period and there was no complaint in respect of her employment. The Petitioner has further contended that in her service, she was transferred from one Divisional Office to another and throughout her service, she had an excellent track record insofar as her employment is concerned, in spite of these frequent transfers. The Petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document