A
MALKIAT SINGH
v.
4--
STATE OF PUN.TAB AND ORS.
-
JANUARY 29, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
c -
Sen1ice Law :
-.
Police constable-Discharge from se1vice-Absence from duty and ir-
'
c
regular in attending duty-Absence on three occasions---Held; Can not be
considered to be regular absence so as to conclude that he had not proved
his efficiency-On the third occasion, the absence not deliberate as his wife'
delive1y had complications as revealed by the Medical Certificaw-One more
opportunity to be given to the constable to prove his excellence-To be
reinstated in se1vice--In case he absents for two consecutive days within one
D year without p1ior pennission action be taken for dis111issing hint front se!Vice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3506 of
,-
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.94 of the Punjab &
E Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 9775 of 1993.
K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Ranbir Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides.
G
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 occasion, when he was called upon
..•
H to report for duty at 12 noon, he reported on September 10, 1990 and was
1026
..
f
·~
'
' \
•
MALKIAT SINGH v. STATE
1027
late by six hours. On the second occasion, he was absent, on June 30, 1991, A
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 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
B
absented himself from duty. On the previous two occasions, the absence
for one day and in another year for one night cannot be considered lo 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
absence 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.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
c
D
Lex