KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 15-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 484 
KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2106 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - r. 3(1)(ii) 
and (iii) - Employee unauthorisedly absent from duty for three 
consecutive periods - Held guilty of violating r. 3(1)(ii) and (iii) 
for failure to maintain devotion to duty and conduct 
0 unbecoming of government servant - Order of dismissal from 
service - Said order upheld by the appellate authority, the 
tribunal and the High Court - On appeal, held: In a 
Departmental proceeding, if a/legation of unauthorised 
absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is 
E required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such 
finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct - On facts, 
the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence though held 
that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but 
failed to hold the absence willful - Disciplinary authority as 
also the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the same and 
F wrongly held the appellant guilty - Specific defence of the 
appellant that he was prevented from attending duty by the 
Controlling Officer and other evidence ignored - Thus, the 
order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority, upheld by 
the Appellate Authority; the tribunal and High Court set aside 
G - Employee reinstated with 50% back wages - Employee 
having suffered a lot since the proceedings were initiated 
against him, matter not remitted to the disciplinary authority. 
Appellant was charged for unauthorised absence 
H 
484 
KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR v. UNION OF INDIA 
485 
from duty during three consecutive periods (36 days, 32 
A 
days and 234. days). The appellant alleged bias against 
the controlling officer who prevented him from 
performing the duty to sign the attendance register. The 
enquiry officer submitted a report and the charges were 
proved. The appellant was held guilty of violating Rule 
B 
3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) 
Rules, 1964 for failure to maintain devotion of duty and 
his behavior was unbecoming of a government servant. 
Thereafter, the appellant was dismissed from service. The 
said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority, the c 
tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, the appellant filed 
the instant appeal. 
Allowing the.appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From a bare perusal of the charge memo 
D 
and the Inquiry Report it can be deduced that the Inquiry 
Officer proceeded on a wrong premise. [Para 10] [490-E] 
1.2. The question whether 'unauthorised absence 
from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or 
E 
behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot 
be decided without deciding the question whether 
absence is wilful or because of comp.elling 
circumstances. If the absence is the result of compelling 
circumstances under which it was not possible to report 
F 
or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be 
wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior 
permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it 
does not always mean wilful. There may be different 
eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from 
duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his 
G 
control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in 
such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure 
of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a 
Government servant. In a Departmental proceeding, if 
allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, 
H 
486 -
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the 
absence is wilful, in abs~nce of such finding, the absence 
will not amount to misconduct. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19]. [492-
F-H; 493-A-B] 
8 
1.3. In the instant case, the Inquiry Officer on 
appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant 
was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold 
the absence is wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the 
Appellate Authotity, failed to appreciate the same and 
wrongly held the appellant guilty. No such finding was 
C given by the Inquiry Officer. Though the appellant took a 
specific defence that he was prevented from attending 
duty by DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the 
attendance register and also brought on record 1 ~ 
defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was 
D prevented to sign the atte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.