Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14524
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
KUDUMULLA YAHOSUA – Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR – Respondent
WA No. 328 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.P. Singh
For the Respondents: Kashif Shakeel
Habitual and prolonged unauthorized absence, coupled with a history of similar misconduct, justifies the penalty of dismissal, and a belated claim of coerced admission without evidence does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Habitual Absence - Prolonged and repeated unauthorized absence, especially when the employee has a history of similar misconduct despite previous penalties, constitutes grave misconduct justifying dismissal. (Para 18, 22)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Admission of Guilt - A plea of coercion in admitting charges, raised for the first time at a belated stage without contemporaneous evidence, is treated as an afterthought and does not vitiate the enquiry. (Para 19, 20)
(C) Quantum of Punishment - Proportionality - Interference in the quantum of punishment is warranted only if it shocks the conscience of the court; habitual absenteeism demonstrating incorrigibility justifies the ultimate penalty of dismissal. (Para 22)
(D) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the High Court disentitles a petitioner from invoking discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Para 24)
Issues: Whether the termination of the appellant for habitual absence was disproportionate or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of termination for habitual absence and subsequent legal challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on proportionality of punishment and adherence to natural justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments on habitual misconduct, applicable standing orders, and delay in filing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. finding of habitual absence and validity of the departmental enquiry. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. justification of dismissal penalty based on incorrigibility and applicable law. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal due to lack of merit and inordinate delay. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
Judgment on Board
Per
Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN B MR OI RJM LEOHANM DaO teR :LE 2026.04.27 17:56:59 +0530
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 4742 of 2011 (Kudumulla Yahosua vs. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein came to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed to the post of Plant Attendant (S-1 Grade) in Bhilai Steel Plant vide appointment order dated 01.11.1999 and was allotted Personnel No. 942277 and Token No. 36319, and thereafter discharged his duties under the respondent establishment diligently.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of his service, the appellant was constrained by compelling family circumstances, inasmuch as his aged mother was suffering from chronic ailments including asthma and arthritis and required continuous medical care and attention. Due to such unavoidable circumstances, the appellant was occasionally unable to attend duties, though he had duly informed the department whenever leave was required. It is also submitted that the appellant himself fell seriously ill and was diagnosed with Hepatitis, on account of which he remained hospitalized and was declared medically unfit for the period from 02.01.2004 to 31.01.2004.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that thereafter a charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 was issued alleging habitual absence from duty without leave, to which the appellant submitted his explanation. It is further contended that the departmental enquiry conducted against the appellant was not fair and proper and was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was summoned before the Enquiry Officer on 22.09.2004 and was prevailed upon to admit the charges on an assurance that a lenient view would be taken.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that under such pressure and inducement, the appellant admitted the charges, and solely on the basis of such admission, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 22.09.2004, pursuant to which the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 18.03.2005 terminating the services of the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant challenged the said termination before the Labour Court, Durg, which came to be rejected without assigning cogent reasons, and the appeal preferred before the Industrial Court, Raipur was also dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2007. Thereafter, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to the present writ appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the absence of the appellant was neither willful nor deliberate, but was on account of his own illness and the serious medical condition of his aged mother, which constituted sufficient cause. It is further submitted that the medical certifi
