STATE OF PUNJAB versus DR. P.L. SINGLA

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 31-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 600 
~ 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
V. 
DR. P.L. SINGLA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4969 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 31, 2008 
,. 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ] 
Service Law: 
c 
Grant of extra-ordinary leave - Effect of - Doctor in ser-
vice of State Government found guilty of 5 years unauthorized 
absence - Punishment of withholding five increments with 
cumulative effect - Subsequent grant of extra-ordinary leave 
for the period of absence - HELD: Any consequential order 
•
~ 
D directing how the period of absence should be accounted, is 
an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not 
I 
> ..
affect or supersede the order imposing punishment - Pun-
ishment was imposed by order dated 11. 10. 1999 - That order 
was not cancelled, revoked or withdrawn - Subsequent order 
E dated 25. 1. 2001 merely accorded extraordinary leave in re-
gard to the period of absence, but did not condone the unau-
thorized absence nor wipe out the punishment already im-
posed - The said order was only consequential to the imposi-
tion of punishment - Its effect was to maintain continuity of 
service of the respondent, but deny salary for the period of 
F absence and not to count the period of absence as qualifying 
service for the purposes of pension - Its effect is certainly not 
to exonerate the respondent from the charge of unauthorised 
absence nor to wipe out the punishment. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4969 
I 
G of 2008 
\ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2006 of 
-f 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA 
No. 2671 of 2005 
H 
600 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. DR. P.L. SINGLA 
601 
, ,. 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.] 
' ' 
Kuldip Singh and Ajay Pal for the Appellant. 
A 
Sanjay Sarin, Sarilina Sheikh, Abhinav Ramkrishna and 
Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the par-
B 
1" 
ties. 
2. The respondent is a doctor in the service of the appel-
lant - State of Punjab. On 1.8.1991, the respondent was trans-
ferred to Makandam. The respondent joined duty on 17.8.1991, c 
but unauthorizedly absented himself from 1.6.1992. As he was 
absent for nearly five years, the Health and Family Welfare 
Department issued a charge-sheet dated 28.5.1997 to the re-
spondent. The two charges were : (a) absenting from duty de-
liberately from 1.6.1992; and (b) disobeying the orders of offi-
D 
cial superiors. An enquiry was held into the said charges. The 
' 
~ 
Enquiry Officer submitted his report. In regard to first charge, 
,, 
the Enquiry Officer found that the respondent had, in fact, 
absented himself unauthorisedlyfrom 1.6.1992to17.10.1997. 
But he accepted two explanations given by respondent and 
E 
concluded that the absence was under compelling circum-
stances. The first explanation was that those were days ofter-
rorism in Punjab. The second was that the respondent had sent 
by post an application seeking leave from 1.6.1992 to 
30.12.1992 and did not receive any refusal, and, therefore pre-
sumed that the leave had been granted. The Enquiry Officer 
F 
""' 
also held that the second charge was not proved. 
3. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry 
report, for reasons recorded in a dissent note. The said note 
stated that unauthorized absence from 1.6.1992 to 17 .10.1997 G 
was clearly indiscipline; that only after the chargesheet was is-
sued, the respondent had offered to join back duty (and in fact 
~ 
joined duty only on 18.10.1997) and not earlier. The dissent note 
therefore proposed to hold the respondent guilty of the two 
charges. A show cause notice dated 1.4.1999 was issued to 
H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
the respondent enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and the 
dissent note. The respondent sent a reply dated 10.5.1999. The 
Governor of Punjab by order dated 1 f?.9.1999 (communicated 
on 11.10.1999) did not accept the findings in the Enquiry Re-
port. For the reasons stated in the dissent note, he held the 
B respondent guilty and imposed a punishment of withholding of 
five increments with cumulative effect. 
4. By a subsequent order dated 25.1.2001, issued in con-· 
tinuation of the order imposing punishment, the Governor of 
Punjab accorded extra-ordinary leave to the respondent for the 
C period 1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997. Two consequences followed 
as a consequence thereof under the Punjab Civil Service Rules .. 
A government servant is not entitl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.