http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: MALKIAT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      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 occasions when he  was called  upon to  report for duty at 12 noon, he reported on September 10, 1990 and was late by six hours. On the second  occasion, he  was absent, on June 30, 1991, 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  had 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 absented himself from duty. On the previous  two occasions,  the absence for one day and in another year  for one  night  cannot  be  considered  to  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 absents 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.