Malkiat Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors
- SCC(1996) 7 SCC 634
- Neutral1996 INSC 142
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 1026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee has been discharged from service for absence from duty, and the absences consist of isolated incidents over an extended period (one late reporting by six hours, one full day's absence, and one night's absence) without a pattern of deliberate dereliction, and where medical certification explains at least one absence as necessitated by a genuine family emergency, the discharge order is disproportionate and should be set aside; the employee should be reinstated with a warning that further absences of two consecutive days within one year without prior permission will result in dismissal, though without entitlement to back-wages for the period of discharge.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 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 occasions 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. The explanation offered for the absence on third occasion was that since in his wife's delivery certain complication had arisen, he had 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 absented himself from duty. On the previous two occasions, the absence for one day and in another year for one night cannot be considered to 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 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, however, is not entitled to back-wages.
Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free