Supreme Court of India

MANDEEP KUMAR ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: 1995 INSC 676
Decided: 2 November 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

Marginal lapses of absence may be condoned with reinstatement, but the employee is not entitled to arrears of salary and any further unauthorised absence within two years will lead to discharge.

Summary

The appellants, former government employees, were dismissed for multiple unauthorised absences amounting to marginal lapses of one to two days. They challenged their dismissal before the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement with full back‑pay. The Court examined whether such marginal lapses warranted dismissal or could be condoned, and whether reinstatement could be granted without arrears of salary. It held that the absences, being marginal, merited a fresh opportunity to improve performance, but any further unauthorised absence within two years would result in discharge. Accordingly, the Court reinstated the appellants but barred any claim for arrears of salary. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether marginal lapses of absence from duty justify dismissal of a government employee.
Whether reinstatement can be granted without entitlement to arrears of salary.
What conditions may be imposed on reinstated employees to prevent future unauthorised absences.

Subjects

service lawabsence from dutyreinstatementmarginal lapsedischargesalary arrears

Judgment

-                          MANDEEP KUMAR ETC.

                                         '"
                 . STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.
                                                                                    A



                              NOVEMBER 2, 1995

                {K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                               B

          Se1vice Law :

          Absence from duty-Dischmged from service-Absence for about two
    days being marginal lapse fresh opp01tunity to improve excellence in peifor-    C
    mance of duty to be given-<Jn reinstatement not eligible for arrears of
    salwy-Any fwther lapse would entail in discharge from service-Directions
    issued.

         In these two appeals against the judgment of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court, the appellants prayed for reinstatement in service.         D
          Allowing the appeals, this Court

          HELD : The absence from duty being marginal lapse on the part of
    the appellants, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels
    that they may be given a fresh opportunity to improve their excellence in       E
    the performance or the duty. If the appellants absent themselves from duty
    without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, their services
    may be discharged. On reinstatement, the appellants would not be eligible
    for payment of arrears of salary. [730-F]
                                                                                    F
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10217 of
    1995 Etc. Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.93 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 743 of 1993.
                                                                                    G
         Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, A.P. Dhamija, Pradeep Agarwal,
    Ms. Pratibha Jain, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 102.17/95.

          B.R. Saini and M.L. Chhiber, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 10218/95.

          Ms. Nisha Bagachi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.              H
                                      729
                                                                                    -
    730                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

    C.A. No. 10217195 (@SLP (C) No. 11897/94)

           Leave granted.

B         In view of the fact that absence from duty from 2nd to 5th November,
    1990 for nine days was already converted to casual leave, the absence from
    27th and 28th January, 1991 and from 5th to 7th May, 1991 was for one
    day 23 hours and 30 minutes, practically two days, and from 1st to 3rd
    February, 1992, practically two days, being marginal lapse, on the part of
    the appellant, we, in the fact and circumstances of the case, think that he
c   may be given a fresh opportunity to improve his excellence in the perfor-
    mance of his duty. If the appellant absents himself from duty without leave
    even on a single occasion during next two years, his services may be
    discharged. On reinstatement, pursuant to this order, the appellant would
    not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary.
D
           The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

    CA. No. 10218/95 (@ SLP (C) No. 22617/94)

           Leave granted.
E
          Appellant's absence from duty on 3rd March, 1991, for 1 day, 6 hours
    and 35 minutes, on 26th April, 1991, for 10 hours and 35 minutes, on 22nd
    May, 1991, for 16 hours being marginal lapse on his part, we, in the facts
    and circumstances of the case, think that he may be given a fresh oppor-
    tunity to improve his excellence in the performance of the duty. If the
F   appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion ·
    during next two years, his services may be discharged. On reinstatement,
    pursuant to this order, the appellant would not be eli[,~ble for payment of
    arrears of salary.

           The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G
    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.




                                                                                    .

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search