HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN. vs PURNENDU CHAKROBARTY & OS — C.A. No. 13389/1996

Case Summary: Hindustan Paper Corporation v. Purnendu Chakrobarty Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and upheld Hindustan Paper Corporation's termination order invoking Rule 23(vi)(E), which results in loss of lien due to unauthorized absence exceeding 8 consecutive days. However, the Court modified the relief by directing the corporation to grant the respondent compulsory retirement benefits and pensionary entitlements as of January 5, 1989, rather than outright dismissal. Key Reasoning: The respondent proceeded on leave without prior sanction and remained absent for over 6 months without valid medical documentation while facing criminal charges for murder. Although Rule 23(vi)(E) is not classified as a penalty and thus doesn't require a formal inquiry, the Court held it must comply with natural justice principles. Since the corporation gave a show-cause notice and the respondent's inadequate response failed to justify the prolonged absence, the action was justified. The modified relief was granted considering the respondent's service record and imminent retirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.