Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered a service law dispute arising from the discharge of a Constable from the police force. The appellant was appointed on April 20, 1990 and was discharged from service on July 22, 1992 on the ground that he remained absent from duty for more than one month nine days and that he was irregular in attending to duty, which led to the conclusion that he could not prove himself to be an efficient Constable. The Court called for the records and found that the appellant had been absent on three occasions only. On the first occasion, when he was called upon to report for duty at 12 noon, he reported on September 10, 1990 and was late by six hours. On the second occasion, he was absent on June 30, 1991 from night duty. The third occasion was on April 24, 1995. For the third absence, the appellant offered the explanation that his wife's delivery had complications and he had to attend to her, and he produced a medical certificate in that behalf. The Court observed that in view of the medical certificate it could not be said that he had deliberately absented himself from duty. As to the previous two occasions, the Court noted that the absence for one day in one year and for one night in another year could not be considered to be regular absence so as to reach the conclusion that the appellant had not proved his efficiency. The Court acknowledged that discipline is required to be maintained, but observed that absence may sometimes be inevitable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court decided that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to work efficiently and to prove his excellence. The order of discharge was set aside and the respondents were directed to take the appellant into service forthwith. The Court further directed that if the appellant absents himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission, appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from service. The appellant was not entitled to back-wages. The appeal was accordingly allowed with no costs. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik on January 29, 1996.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination/Discharge - Minor Absences and Efficiency - No specific statute cited - The appellant Constable was discharged for being absent for more than 1 month 9 days and irregular in attendance; records revealed only three instances of absence: one late by six hours, one absent one night, and one absent due to wife's delivery complication for which a medical certificate was produced - Court held these did not show deliberate absence or prove inefficiency, set aside discharge and directed reinstatement without back-wages, with liberty to dismiss if two consecutive days unauthorized absence within one year - Held that discipline is required but absence may be inevitable and an opportunity should be given to prove excellence (Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discharge of a Constable from service on the grounds of absence and irregular attendance was justified, and whether the appellant should be reinstated with back-wages.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the order of discharge, directed the respondents to take the appellant into service forthwith, held that the appellant was not entitled to back-wages, and allowed the appeal with no costs. It also directed that if the appellant absents himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission, appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from service.
Law Points
- Discipline is required to be maintained
- however
- absence may sometimes be inevitable
- Isolated minor absences are not sufficient to conclude inefficiency
- Medical certificate for wife's delivery complication negates deliberate absence
- Reinstatement without back-wages
