MALKIAT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 142
- Decided
- 29 January 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The discharge was set aside and the appellant reinstated because the absences did not constitute regular neglect of duty or deliberate inefficiency.
Summary
Malkiat Singh, a police constable appointed on 20 April 1990, was discharged on 22 July 1992 on the grounds of prolonged absence and alleged irregular attendance, which the authorities claimed demonstrated his inefficiency. The record showed three instances of absence: a six‑hour tardiness on 10 September 1990, a night‑duty absence on 30 June 1991, and an absence on 24 April 1995 due to complications in his wife's delivery, for which a medical certificate was produced. The Court examined whether these absences constituted regular neglect sufficient to justify dismissal for inefficiency. It held that the first two isolated absences did not amount to regular absenteeism, and the third was excused by the medical certificate, thus not deliberate. Consequently, the discharge order was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated, though he was not entitled to back wages and was warned that a repeat absence of two consecutive days without permission could lead to dismissal. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's absences amounted to regular neglect of duty sufficient to justify dismissal for inefficiency.
- Whether the medical certificate for the third absence negates deliberate absenteeism.
Subjects
Judgment
A MALKIAT SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUN.TAB AND ORS.
JANUARY 29, 1996
-
4--
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) c
-
Sen 1ice 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.
F The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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
1026
f
·~
•
MALKIAT SINGH v. STATE 1027
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 c
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.
D
Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
'
' \
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.