Supreme Court of India
MALKIAT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. on 29 January 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
MALKIAT SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUN.TAB AND ORS.
JANUARY 29, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Sen[1]ice Law :
Police constable-Discharge from se1vice-Absence from duty and ir-regular in attending duty-Absence on three occasions---Held; Can not be c considered to be regular absence so as to conclude that he had not proved his efficiency-On the third occasion, the absence not deliberate as his wife' delive1y had complications as revealed by the Medical Certificaw-One more opportunity to be given to the constable to prove his excellence-To be reinstated in se1vice--In case he absents for two consecutive days within one D [year without ][p1ior ][pennission action ][be ][taken ][for ][dis111issing ][hint ][front ][se!Vice. ]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3506 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.94 of the Punjab & E [Haryana High Court ][in ][C.W.P. ][No. ][9775 ][of ][1993. ]
K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Ranbir Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides.
The appellant was appointed on April 20, 1990 and was discharged G from service on July 22, 1992 on the ground that he remained absent from duty for more than 1 month 9 days. Another ground was that he was irregular in attending to the duty. So he could not prove himself to be an efficient Constable. We had sent for the records which disclose that he was absent on three occasions. On the first occasion, when he was called upon H [to report for duty at ][12 ][noon, he reported on September ][10, ][1990 ][and was ]
G
-
4--
'
,-
•
..•
..
'
' \
•
1027
MALKIAT SINGH v. STATE
late by six hours. On the second occasion, he was absent, on June 30, 1991, A from night duty. The third occasion was on April 24, 1995. The explanation offered for the absence on third occasion was that since in his wife's delivery certain complication had arisen, he to attend to his wife and so he could not be present. The Medical Certificate in that behalf was produced. In view of the Medical certificate, it cannot be said that he had deliberately B absented himself from duty. On the previous two occasions, the absence for one day and in another year for one night cannot be considered lo be regular absence so as to reach the conclusion that he had not proved his efficiency. It is true that discipline is required to be maintained. However, absence may sometimes be inevitable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to work efficiently to prove his excellence. The order of discharge is set aside. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service forthwith. If the appellant absence himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission. Appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from . service. The appellant, however, is not entitled to back- wages.
c
D
Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
G.N.