Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 (Krushnakant B. Parmar Versus Union of India and another). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:-

"16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether "unauthorised absence from duty" amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances.

18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

19. In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.

So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the order of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge of absentism levelled against late husband of the petitioner, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B.Parmar v. Union of India and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 whereunder Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that the charge of unauthorised absence from duty cannot be decided without deciding the question as to whether the absence is wilful or is because of compelling circumstances. It has been further held that in a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful and in the absence of any such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence but it does not always be wilful and, therefore, does not amount to grave misconduct.

In view of the material on record clearly establishing the fact that late husband of the petitioner was seriously ill and was undergoing treatment at a Government Hospital against which no evidence was produced in the enquiry proceedings, it can be safely assumed that late husband of the petitioner was under compelling circumstances due to which he could not report on his duty resulting in his unauthorised absence. However, on the application of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), it cannot be said that the unauthorised absence of late husband of the petitioner was wilful and deliberate and, therefore, it cannot be held that such unauthorised absence amounted to misconduct so grave as to dismiss him from service.