On abandonment, removal of employee name from muster roll permissible for more than 10 days as per Standing orders: All. HC

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited sets a robust precedent affirming the primacy of certified standing orders in regulating employer-employee relations. The judgment reinforces that employers can justifiably remove an employee for prolonged unauthorized absence if reasonable procedures—such as issuing a show-cause notice—are followed.

In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of procedural compliance and reliability of documentary evidence in employment disputes, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for prolonged unauthorized absence. The decision, rendered in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman (Writ A No. 3653/2001), affirms the employer’s decision under its certified standing orders and underscores the importance of due process in cases involving job abandonment.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, challenged the decision of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to strike his name from the rolls of the organization on the grounds of unauthorized absence. HAL invoked its certified standing orders, which explicitly permit an employer to initiate separation proceedings when a worker remains absent without authorization for more than ten consecutive days.

According to HAL, Mr. Tripathi failed to report to duty for an extended period without obtaining prior approval or providing legitimate justification. In response to his absence, the organization issued a show-cause notice as required under its internal procedural norms, demanding an explanation for his continued absenteeism.

The petitioner argued that he had submitted multiple representations to justify his absence, which he claimed were sent under a “postal certificate”—a mode of communication that, unlike registered post, does not provide acknowledgment of delivery. He asserted that his efforts to communicate his circumstances to the employer were sufficient and that his removal was unjust and violative of principles of natural justice.

Court’s Analysis

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court, while adjudicating the matter, observed that the petitioner’s conduct was not in conformity with acceptable standards of diligence expected from a responsible employee. The Court emphasized that employers are well within their rights to impose reasonable rules to ensure attendance and discipline, and certified standing orders have the binding force of law when properly adopted.

The Court further noted that HAL had complied with its obligation under the standing orders by issuing a show-cause notice prior to removal. The notice provided the petitioner with an opportunity to explain his absence, thereby fulfilling the fundamental requirements of natural justice and due process.

Rejection of Under Postal Certificate as Sufficient Proof

One of the central issues considered by the Court was whether the representations allegedly sent by the petitioner through under postal certificate (UPC) could be deemed as sufficient and reliable evidence of communication. The bench categorically held that documents sent via UPC, without any proof of receipt or acknowledgment, lack evidentiary credibility in judicial proceedings.

In its reasoning, the Court pointed out that unlike registered post, which provides an acknowledgment receipt and tracking facility, UPC offers no assurance that a document has been delivered or received by the intended party. As such, the mere production of a postal certificate, without more, was insufficient to establish that HAL had in fact received the petitioner’s communications.

Accordingly, the Court held that no fault could be ascribed to the employer for proceeding on the basis that no satisfactory response had been received from the petitioner.

Procedural Fairness and Employer’s Discretion

The Court underscored that the essence of fair disciplinary action lies in providing a meaningful opportunity to respond. In this case, HAL had discharged its responsibility by issuing a show-cause notice in accordance with the standing orders. The petitioner, however, neither appeared before any appropriate authority nor submitted a verifiable response through formal channels.

The bench remarked, “An employee who chooses to remain absent without authorization bears the burden of establishing a legitimate reason and must utilize credible modes of communication. Resorting to informal or unverifiable means reflects poorly on an employee’s intent and seriousness.”

This observation reflects the Court’s stance that employer discretion, when exercised within the bounds of established rules and natural justice, is entitled to judicial deference.

Broader Implications for Employment Jurisprudence

This ruling has wide-ranging implications in the domain of employment law and human resource management. It reiterates the principle that courts will not interfere with disciplinary action taken in good faith, following internal regulations, and backed by prima facie compliance with principles of natural justice.

Moreover, the judgment serves as a cautionary tale for employees regarding the importance of procedural propriety. The reliance on informal or legally insufficient methods to justify workplace absence or communicate with employers is fraught with risk.

Employers, for their part, are reminded of their obligation to ensure that disciplinary actions are backed by documentation, adherence to procedural rules, and opportunities for the employee to respond.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited sets a robust precedent affirming the primacy of certified standing orders in regulating employer-employee relations. The judgment reinforces that employers can justifiably remove an employee for prolonged unauthorized absence if reasonable procedures—such as issuing a show-cause notice—are followed.

The rejection of under postal certificate as reliable evidence also marks a critical legal clarification on the standards of admissible documentary proof in employment matters. In an age where communication technologies offer multiple modes of verifiable outreach, this decision underscores the legal system’s demand for trustworthy and conclusive documentation.

As workplace discipline and lawful termination continue to be recurring issues across various industries, this decision will likely be cited in future litigation to emphasize the need for procedural diligence—by both employers and employees alike. For further insights into the evolving workplace paradigm, visit

Author
Recent Posts

PEOPLE MANAGER

People Manager is an India’s leading high-quality people-focused monthly HR Magazine and provides up-to-date HR News, Leadership Announcements, Best HR Practices and Insights by leading CHROs, CEOs, HR Advisors, Business Managers and HR Heads on topics of interest to HR professionals. To subscribe People Manager, HR Magazine please visit- https://peoplemanager.co.in/subscribe/

Latest posts by PEOPLE MANAGER (see all)