When Absence Becomes Abandonment: Bombay High Court Upholds Removal of Insurance Employee for 993 Days of Unauthorized Leave, Ruling That Medical Excuses Cannot Be an Afterthought to Evade Disciplinary Accountability.
In the modern workplace, the tension between personal health crises and professional obligations is a recurring theme. However, a recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in the case of Neha Nilesh Sawant v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. serves as a sobering reminder that while the law protects employees, it does not provide a shield for prolonged, uncommunicated absenteeism. The court’s analysis offers a masterclass in the boundaries of "reasonable opportunity" and the weight of medical evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
The "Afterthought" Medical CertificateOne of the most striking aspects of this judgment is the court's skepticism toward medical evidence produced long after the fact. The petitioner claimed her absence of nearly three years was due to severe health issues, including "Chronic Fissure" and anemia. However, the court noted that these justifications were not provided to the employer during the period of absence, but rather surfaced during the litigation process.
The court observed that submitting medical documents years later, especially when the employee failed to respond to multiple reminders during their absence, renders such evidence an "afterthought". This highlights a critical principle: for medical grounds to be a valid defense in service law, there must be contemporaneous communication with the employer.
Natural Justice is Not an Absolute Shield for the IndifferentThe petitioner argued that the departmental inquiry violated the principles of natural justice because it proceeded ex-parte. The court’s rebuttal was firm. Natural justice requires that an individual be given a fair opportunity to be heard, but it does not require the employer to wait indefinitely for an employee who chooses not to participate.
"The entire conduct of the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was never interested in attending her duties and even assuming that she was suffering from ill-health, she chose not to keep the management in the loop and with impunity continued to remain absent from service."
This reinforces the idea that the "right to be heard" carries a corresponding "duty to appear". If an employee is served with notices and a charge memo but remains silent, they cannot later claim a violation of natural justice when the axe falls.
The Threshold of ProportionalityA common defense in dismissal cases is the "Doctrine of Proportionality"—the idea that the punishment must fit the crime. The petitioner, having served for 22 years, argued that removal from service was too harsh. The court, however, distinguished this case from precedents where shorter absences (like six months) were condoned due to personal exigencies.
In this instance, the absence spanned 993 days—nearly three years. The court held that for a public sector undertaking, such a long period of unauthorized absence without contribution constitutes "gross misconduct". The judgment suggests that while courts may interfere with "shockingly disproportionate" punishments, a three-year disappearance from the workforce justifies the ultimate professional penalty.
The Distinction Between "Incapacity" and "Abandonment"The court meticulously distinguished several Supreme Court precedents cited by the petitioner. For example, in cases where employees were terminated due to failing eyesight (occupational hazards), the courts have historically been lenient. However, the Bombay High Court clarified that "ill-health" is not a blanket excuse for all forms of absenteeism.
The court noted that the petitioner’s ailments, while uncomfortable, did not justify a total lack of communication for years. There is a fine legal line between being "unable to work" and "abandoning duty". By failing to seek leave or respond to reminders, the petitioner’s conduct moved from the former category into the latter.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Professional AccountabilityThis judgment is a significant contribution to Indian service jurisprudence. It establishes that while the judiciary remains a guardian of employee rights, it will not tolerate the misuse of legal doctrines to cover for a total breakdown in professional accountability. For employees, the message is clear: keep your employer in the loop. For employers, the judgment affirms that following due process—even if it leads to an ex-parte decision—will stand the test of judicial scrutiny if the employee’s conduct demonstrates a clear lack of interest in their vocation.
Case: NEHA NILESH SAWANT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS
Law: Constitution of India, Industrial Disputes Act.
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:9964-DB
Decision Date: 20-04-2026