Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Om Prakash vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 September, 2011

Om Prakash vs Comm. Of Police on 30 November, 2017

(d) if the departmental authorities, after passing the order of punishment, pass es an order for maintaining a correct record of the service of the delinquent officer and also for adjustment of leave due to the delinquent officer, the said action cannot be treated as an action condoning the lapse and the misconduct of the 13 OA 71/2013 delinquent officer.[Maan Singh vs Union of India referred to in Om Parkash case(supra)]
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.P. Constable No. 1400 Sushil Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 November, 2019

11. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab and others : (2011) 14 SCC 682 ; and State of U.P. and others vs. Mahadev Prasad Sharma (order in SLP (C) No. 31461 of 2009 dated 10.01.2009), the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any back-wages or salary, except what had been granted to him by the competent authority for the suspension period.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Verma - Full Document

I M Nagarajaiah vs The Divisional Controller on 26 September, 2019

12. Even in the subsequent judgments in the cases of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab and others (2011) 14 SCC 682 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T.Murali Banu (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Apex Court has come down heavily on persons remaining unauthorisedly absent without any compelling reasons and the penalty/punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the offence of unauthorized absence. As stated supra, in the instant case, apart from the medical certificates produced by the appellant, which were highly discrepant and contain several inconsistencies, the appellant had not examined the Doctor, who issued the medical certificates and as such, the said certificates had not been proved in accordance with law. Apart from his self serving and interested testimony, the appellant had not adduced any other
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bakshish Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 April, 2022

10. It is also well settled that absence without leave in a disciplined force like the Police has to be viewed seriously so as to warrant dismissal from service. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(14) SCC 682, wherein dismissal of a Head Constable for his absence for a period of 39 days without leave or intimation was upheld.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document

Baljeet Singh vs State Of Haryana Th Secretary And ... on 1 December, 2016

10. It is also well settled that absence without leave in a disciplined force like the Police has to be viewed seriously so as to warrant dismissal from service. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(14) SCC 682, wherein dismissal of a Head Constable for his absence for a period of 39 days without leave or intimation was upheld.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A S Grewal - Full Document

The Union Of India vs Ct Sajjan Singh on 20 January, 2023

12. The view taken by us in earlier paragraphs finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 682. The said case was also a case of unauthorized absence from duty resulting in proved misconduct. The Court held that even if the period of absence was regularized that is only for the purposes of maintaining the correct service record and adjustment of leave (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:51:49 PM) (6 of 7) [SAW-627/2021] due to the delinquent officer but it does not take to mean to condone the absence/misconduct.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hanuman Sahai vs State Of Raj & Ors on 9 December, 2016

No plausible defence obtained before the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority for repeated absence by a constable from duty. The finding of fact has been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority is not even remotely perverse and warrants no interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nor is the penalty of removal disproportionate in the facts of the case. And in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab [(2011)14 SCC 682] unauthorized absence of even 39 days by a Head Constable of Punjab Police was found sufficient by the Apex Court to upheld his dismissal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document
1