SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 913

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Rajinder Kumar – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8064 OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 10039/2014)
Decided On : 30-09-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment should be awarded considering all options in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:Service law – Dismissal – Appellant a constable dismissed for unauthorised absence – The absence though explained rendering him unfit for service in the disciplined force – No point in reinstating him – However disciplinary authority and appellate authority should have considered whether dismissal was the only option – Punishment being within discretion of the authorities a proper decision should be taken – Punishment modified to compulsory retirement. (Para 7, 8)

       (2009) 14 SCC 506 – Distinguished

       

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was appointed as a constable on 24.12.1979.

       He was dismissed for unauthorised absence.

       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, dealt with the challenge on an entirely diferent angle, perhaps on account of the misconceived contentions raised by the appellant on the claims for pension.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was appointed as a constable under the first respondent-State on 24.12.1979. On the ground that he remained absent from duty while he was posted in police lines, Kurkshetra, Haryana on three occasions, extending to a total period of thirty seven days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. He was found guilty of misconduct and a major penalty of dismissal was imposed on him by order dated 22.11.1994 of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The appeal before the D.I.G. of Police, Ambala, Haryana was dismissed, and that order was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No. 16511 of 1997. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 26.05.2009. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“It is, thus, clear that the finding regarding the petitioner having committed gravest misconduct cannot be faulted. However, reading the impugned order against the backdrop of the latest exposition of law (reproduced above). I find that the punishing authority has not considered the question regarding the right of the petitioner’s pension. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of punishment (Annexure P-3 and P-8) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision on the above aspect and pass a fresh order of punishment within a period of three months. However, the order of reinstatement shall remain in abeyance till such fresh consideration and will depend upon the outcome of the same.”

3. The order of the learned Single Judge was taken up in intra court appeal leading to the impugned Judgment dated 22.02.2013. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant had put in around fifteen years of service prior to his termination. The charge against the appellant was only of unauthorized absence of short durations. The appellant had an explanation for his absence, that he was taking treatment in the District Chest T.B. and Leprosy Centre, Kurukshetra, Haryana, for his chronic tuberculosis. It appears, on that count, the appellant pleaded for mercy before the Inquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 22.11.1994, passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The operative portion of the order dated 22.11.1994 reads as follows:

“In the case in hand the absence from duty for 37 days on the part of the defaulter was not an isolated act. Even prior to this as mentioned earlier, there have been repeated acts of remaining absent from duty, and taking lenient view of the matter, the defaulter had been let of by the award of lesser punishment giving him an opportunity to reform. Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself he continued to remain absent from duty of and on. Such a misconduct from a member of disciplined force is not expected, who has about 15 years of service to his credit. He has thus proved himself to be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service. Police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious afects in the maintenance of law and order.

I thus award Constable Rajinder Kumar, 343/KKR penalty of dismissal from service with immediate efect.”

5. In appeal, the appellant, inter alia, pleaded for mercy and alteration of the punishment. His plea was rejected by the appellate authority. The operative portion of the order dated 21.04.1995 passed by the appellate authority, reads as follows:

“The appellant has further pleaded that the punishment awarded to him is extreme. He is the only earning member of the family. He has prayed for leniency. I have perused the service record of the appellant. He was enrolled in the police force w.e.f. 24/12/79. He has rendered the se




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top