OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 08-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 11 S.C.R. 263 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4893 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, 
JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law: Termination/Dismissal from service -
Absence from duty without leave/information - Disciplinary c 
proceedings - Dismissal from service - Appeal and revision 
dismissed - Suit for declaration and for setting aside order 
of dismissal from service - Trial court decreeing the suit 
holding that in view of the regularisation of the leave by the 
competent authority for the period of unauthorized absence, 
D 
the charge would no longer survive - Consequently, order of 
dismissal set aside with direction to reinstate the appellant in 
service and to pay him backwages - Appeal before District 
Judge dismissed - Appeal before High Court - High Court 
held that the order of punishment awarded against appellant 
E 
was legal and valid - Justification of - Held: Justified -
Appellant's contention that absence report was not furnished 
to him which vitiated the inquiry proceeding not tenable since 
appellant himself was fully conscious and aware that he was 
absent from duties for 39 days - The said fact was mentioned 
F 
in the charge-sheet and he had full opportunity to defend 
himself - No prejudice was, thus, caused to him even if such 
a report was not furnished to him by the departmental 
authorities - Contention that appellant was not given any 
opportunity of hearing in the departmental proceedings a/so 
not tenable - Records showed that the appellant participated G 
in the Departmental proceedings and was given an 
opportunity to cross-examine which he had availed of -
He 
had even taken notes from the records as a/so of the 
263 
H 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'[2011) 11 S.C.R. 
A. 
proceedings before the Inquiry Officer - Moreover it was 
established from the records and the report of the Inquiry 
Officer that no medical certificate was produced by the 
appellant before the Inquiry Officer during the departmental 
proceeding -
Contention that period of absence of the 
8 appellant having been regularized, the said charge of 
unauthorized absence would fall through not tenable since 
period of the unauthorised absence was not condoned by · 
the authority but the same was simply shown as regularised 
for the purpose of maintaining a correct record -
Appellant 
C was a habitual absentee 
without 
leave 
and, 
therefore, 
deserved no sympathy. 
D 
E 
State of MP. v. Harihar Gopal 1969 SLR 274 (SC); Maan 
Singh v. Union of India and Others 2003 (3) SCC 464: 2003 
(2) SCR 129 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1969 SLR 274(SC) 
2003 (2) SCR 129 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 11 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4893 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RS.A. No. 336 
F of 1993. 
G 
H 
Harikesh Singh (for Yash Pal Dhingra) for the Appellant. 
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, Mohit Mudgil for 
the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal is c;jirected against the judgment and order 
· OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
265 
dated 1.3.2007 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court ·A 
setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the 
appellant herein and thereby upholding the order of punishment 
awarded to the appellant. 
2. The appellant was working as Head Constable in 
8 
· Punjab Police. He absented from duty on 13.10.1984 which 
was recorded vide D.D.R. No. 2 at 10.00 A.M. It is alleged on 
behalf of the respondents that neither did he pray for any leave 
for his absence nor did he intimate the authorities the reasons 
for not attending the duty. The appellant after absenting from 
C 
duty for 39 days reported back on 22. 11.1984. Even at that 
stage, he did not produce any document regarding his illness 
or any evidence to indicate that he was admitted in any hospital. 
3. Consequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated 
against the appellant for awarding major punishment. In the 
D 
said proceedings, the appellant appeared and contested the 
matter. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer 
submitted his report finding the appellant guilty of the charges. 
On submission of the aforesaid report by the Inquiry Officer, the 
competent and disciplinary authority on going through the 
records passed an order of dismissal from service. 
\ 
4. The said order was ch

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