Is It Fair to Dismiss an Employee for Absconding Without Prior Misconduct?

Is it justified to dismiss a workman in the first instance of absconding?

A workman absconded from work, and after several letters to his residence, a charge sheet was shared with the workman for absence from duties without any intimation or approval, and a domestic enquiry has been initiated. Four sittings were scheduled, communicated in advance through registered post, but the charge-sheeted workman did not appear nor communicate his inability to appear. The enquiry officer closed the enquiry ex-parte and held him guilty of the charges. The second show cause has been sent to the workman, but there has been no reply to that as well.

The management hence dismissed the workman and sent the dismissal letter to the workman. The workman did not reply to that either.

The workman neither has a past history of indiscipline nor any warning issued for any misconduct. In this case, is it justified to dismiss the above-said workman?

Dear Vishnu Uthaman,

In the case at hand, the worker had absconded from his duties. He was given a sufficient chance to appear for the inquiry. However, he did not turn up. Finally, the inquiry was closed, and management decided to terminate his services.

If the worker absconds without any information when the notices were sent to him, he remains incommunicado. Against such a backdrop, what is management supposed to do? They have followed the principles of natural justice from their side.

Business Challenges and Employee Commitment

Business owners, when they invest in their business enterprise, face a scenario where investment is fraught with risk. Investing money is only one part of the business activity. The real challenge lies in how to get the work done by others. It requires special skills to run a business enterprise. Those who demonstrate such skills naturally expect a reasonable profit. However, this profit can be accrued provided the staff employed remains committed to their employment. If some employee plays truant and if disciplinary action is initiated even with the first misconduct itself, then what is wrong?

The management has made a perfect decision by first following a due procedure of discipline and then terminating the workman. This will send a signal to all other employees about what can happen if they engage in misconduct of this kind. To run a business organization, it is important to institute a culture of discipline. That is what management has done.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Vishnu,

Absconding from work is a breach of the contract of employment on the part of the employee, and their remaining incommunicado would automatically lead to the presumption of unilateral termination of the contract of employment by them without adhering to the exit clause, thus constituting serious misconduct.

Any serious misconduct warrants stringent punishment, including the dismissal of the employee after following all the procedures related to disciplinary action by the employer. This is especially true when the delinquent employee willfully fails to participate in the disciplinary proceedings without justification. Whether the misconduct committed is a first-time occurrence or a repeated offense becomes irrelevant in determining the severity or type of the punishment.

Therefore, the dismissal of the employee would be justifiable in such cases, regardless of whether the alleged and proven misconduct is a first-time occurrence or a repeated one.

It is quite justified, as confirmed by our learned senior members, with regard to the punishment awarded by the company management. Company management ensured and provided ample opportunities to the delinquent employee, but the same were not used by him; hence the proceedings had to be completed ex parte, and management initiated action based on the enquiry report. It is irrelevant that the employee had neither a past history of indiscipline nor any warning issued for any misconduct.

In a business model, top management expects ROI (return on investment), and strategic management gives direction to this. Middle management and operational management need to make efforts for the accomplishment of this.

The management has given enough opportunity for him to present his side regarding the misconduct leveled against him. However, the workman did not respond to the communication from his employer, nor did he participate in the inquiry to challenge the allegations.

The behavior of the workman itself justifies the management's actions. The termination of the workman is justified as it was carried out following the laid-down procedures of the principles of natural justice.

Misconduct is misconduct, whether it occurs on the first instance or in a regular manner; appropriate action must be taken.

In addition to all that has been said, if at any time the employee comes back with a credible explanation as to why he remained incommunicado, you may review the punishment on appeal by the employee. Since there were no bad antecedents and considering that this was the first instance, you may like to substitute the punishment for some other penalty as provided in the rules. Your action so far is perfect and justified.