Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"4. Only argument advanced before this Court is that period of absence was regularized by Competent Authority after granting due leave, hence question of unauthorized absence does not arise since absence was regularized as leave without pay and it cannot be said that there was any unauthorized absence. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and others Vs. Bakshish Singh, 1998(8) SCC 222. Therein two Judges Bench confirmed the judgment of Court below wherein a finding was recorded that unauthorized absence from duty having been regularized by treating period of absence as leave without pay, charge of misconduct does not survive. Aforesaid finding was confirmed by Apex Court by observing that period of unauthorized absence from duty was regularized, hence charge did not survive.
5. It is admitted that absence from duty was unauthorized and without seeking any permission or leave before getting absented. This question was already considered by Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Hari Har Gopal and others, 1969(3) SLR 274 and it was held that an officer in failing to report on duty and absented without obtaining leave and acted in a manner irresponsibly and unjustifiably, finding of inquiry officer that charge of unauthorized absence is proved, may not be vitiated for grant of leave for the period of absence since purpose of such regularization is for maintaining a correct record of duration of service and adjustment of leave due to delinquent employee and for regularizing his absence from duty.
7. This has again been reiterated in State of U.P. and others Vs. Madhav Prasad Sharma, 2011(2) SCC 212 where, in paras 18 and 19, Court said as under:
"18. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bakshish Singh AIR 1999 SC 2626:(1998) 8 SCC 222, this Court has dealt with a case wherein the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the High Court had taken the view that in case unauthorized absence from duty had been regularized by treating the period of absence as leave without pay, the charge of misconduct did not survive. However, without examining the correctness of the said legal proposition, this Court allowed the appeal on other issues. As the said judgment gave an impression that this Court had laid down the law that once unauthorized absence has been regularized, the misconduct would not survive. The matter was referred to the larger bench in Mann Singh's case (supra) wherein this Court clarified that the earlier judgment in Bakshish Singh (supra) did not affirm the said legal proposition and after following the judgment of this Court in State of M.P. v. Hari Har Gopal and Ors. (SC) disposed of the case clarifying that this Court in Bakshish Singh (supra) dealt with only on the issue of remand by the High Court as well as by the Ist Appellate Court to the punishing authority for imposing the fresh punishment.
19. This Court held as under: (Maan Singh Case, SCC p. 470, para 6):
"6. .... Bakshish Singh's case is not an authority for the proposition that the order terminating the employment cannot be sustained inasmuch as in the later part of the same order the Disciplinary Authority also regularized unauthorized absence from duty by granting an employee leave without pay."

This Court further held that the law laid down by this Court in Hari Har Gopal (supra) wherein it had been held that in absence of regularization of unauthorized absence it may not be possible for the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings as there would be break in service and thus, regularization of such absence even without pay is justified. It is so necessary to continue with the disciplinary proceedings."