Case Note & Summary
The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose from two civil appeals filed by employees against the State of Haryana challenging the termination of their services on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty. The judgment text does not set out the procedural history in detail, the names of all parties apart from the lead appellant, or the contentions urged by the advocates. It records that leave was granted in both special leave petitions and the appeals were disposed of by a common order. The court's order is brief and primarily factual in nature, focusing on the duration of the unauthorised absences. In the first appeal, the appellant had absence from duty from 2nd to 5th November, 1990 for nine days, but the court noted that this absence had already been converted to casual leave. The remaining unauthorised absences were on 27th and 28th January, 1991 and from 5th to 7th May, 1991, totalling one day 23 hours and 30 minutes, practically two days, and from 1st to 3rd February, 1992, practically two days. In the second appeal, the absence was on 3rd March, 1991 for 1 day, 6 hours and 35 minutes, on 26th April, 1991 for 10 hours and 35 minutes, and on 22nd May, 1991 for 16 hours. The court characterised these periods as marginal lapses. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether termination of service was proportionate and justified for such short unauthorised absences, and whether the employees deserved a fresh opportunity to continue in service. The court did not record arguments of either party in the order. It reasoned that because the longer absence had already been regularised as casual leave, and the remaining absences were only marginal, the employees should be given a fresh opportunity to improve their excellence in performance. The court therefore set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement. However, it imposed two conditions: first, the appellants would not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary; second, if any appellant absented himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during the next two years, his services may be discharged. The appeals were allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs. The decision reflects a lenient approach to minor attendance lapses while preserving employer's interest through conditional reinstatement and denial of back wages. This order indicates that the Supreme Court considered the facts and circumstances of each case, and found that the punishment of termination was disproportionate to the misconduct of marginal absence. By denying back wages, the court balanced equity between employee and employer. The condition of future attendance acts as a safeguard against repetition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Unauthorised Absence - Marginal Lapse - Reinstatement Without Back Wages - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising out of termination of services of employees due to unauthorised absence from duty for short periods. In the first appeal, absence for nine days had already been converted to casual leave, and subsequent absences were practically two days or less; in the second appeal, absences were for about one day and a few hours. The court treated these as marginal lapses and held that the employees deserved a fresh opportunity to improve their performance. The court directed reinstatement but denied arrears of salary and imposed a condition that any unauthorised absence in the next two years could lead to discharge. Held that short unauthorised absence is a marginal lapse warranting leniency (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination from service due to unauthorized absence for marginal periods was justified, and whether the appellants should be reinstated with or without back wages.
Final Decision
Both civil appeals allowed; the Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellants without payment of arrears of salary, subject to the condition that if the appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during the next two years, his services may be discharged.
Law Points
- Marginal lapse in attendance not sufficient for termination
- employees deserve fresh opportunity to improve
- reinstatement without arrears of salary
- future unauthorized absence may lead to discharge
