MAAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 18-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MAAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 18, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHJKARI AND G.P. 
8 
MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Delhi Police Act, 1978-Section 21-Punjab Police Rules-Rule 16(2)- C 
Charge of unauthorized and wilful absence from duty-Previous habitual 
absence for long periods on several occasions unauthorisedly-Depar.tmental 
proceedings ending in dismissal of delinquent-Upheld by courts below-On 
appeal, Held, dismissal justified, since it cannot be said that absence having 
been treated as "leave without pay", order of dismissal not proper. 
D 
In the main appeal, the appellant, a Constable in Delhi police was 
charged with unauthorised and wilful absence from duty. In the departmental 
proceedings inquiry officer held ex-parte the charge to be established. He was 
dismissed from service holding that his absence was unauthorized and wilful; 
and he had previously absented himself unauthorisably on 21 different E 
occasions. Appellant's departmental appeal against the dismissal order before 
additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was rejected. 
Appellant filed original application before Central Administrative 
Tribunal on the ground that the impugned order was not passed by a 
competent authority as the appellant had been appointed by an officer who F 
is equivalent in rank to Deputy Commissioner of Police; and that the 
period of absen~e having been treated as "leave without pay" could not 
be treated as a ground for dismissal. Tribunal held that the impugned 
order was passed by the competent authority as Additional Deputy 
Commissioner of Police was not subordinate to Deputy Commissioner of 
Police; and that disciplinary authority had not condoned his absence by G 
regularising the absence from duty subsequent to the termination of the 
employment and upheld the dismissal order. 
In appellant's writ petition before High Court it was contended that 
his case was covered by Bakshish Singh 's case wherein it was held that H 
129 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A period of absence having been regularized as "leave without pay" would 
automatically set at naught the order of dismissal. High Court held that 
decision in Harihar Gopal's case was by a larger Bench and this decision 
had not been brought to the notice of the Court in Bakshish Singh 's case. 
High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the view taken 
B by the Tribunal ~as in conformity with the view in Harihar Gopal's case. 
In appeal to this Court, Division Bench referred the matter to three 
Judges Bench in view of the conflict of decisions in Harihar Gopal and 
Bakshish Singh. · 
The connected appeals also relate to unauthorized and wilful absence 
C from duty. It was contended that it is only in cases where the misconduct 
is of gravest kind, order of dismissal shall be made. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that the authority after terminating the 
D employment of delinquent officer intended to pass an order invalidating 
earlier order by sanctioning leave so that he were to be deemed not to 
have reiriained absent from duty without leave duly granted. Hence the 
view taken by High Court is upheld. [134-F, G) 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harihar Gopal, (1969) SLR 274, relied on. 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, [1998) 8 SCC 222; Union 
of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Sharma, [1994) Supp. 3 SCC 755; G. Rajendra 
v. Mis Vikrant Typres Ltd. and Anr., JT (2002) Supp. !;:SC 438; Virendra 
Kumar v. The Chief of the Army Staff, AIR (1986) SC 1060; Jai Shankar v. 
F State of Rajasthan, AIR [1966] SCC 492; Union of India and Ors. v. Ram 
Phal, (1996) 7 SCC 546 and Major Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., JT 
(2000) 9 SC 571, distinguished. 
G 
Tito franscisco Pereira v. Administrator of Goa Daman and Diu and 
Ors., (1978) All India Service Law Journal 614; G. Papaiahb v. Assistant 
Director, Medical Services, Secunderabad, AIR (1976) Andhra Pradesh 75; 
Bhursinh Hamsinh Raj put v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1982) 1 All India 
Service Law Journal 697; Satya Pal Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 
71 Delhi Law Times 68 and State of Punjab v. Chanan Singh, (1988) 3 All 
India Service Law Journal 216, overruled. 
H 
2. Rule 16(2)(1) of Punjab Police Manual, 1934 Vol. II consists of 
-
! 
I 
I 
I 
\ 
I 
. ) 
MAAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 
131 
two parts, .firstly, dismissal shall be awarded for the gravest acts of A 
misconduct and secondly, cumula
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.