Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
In Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178,
the finding of unauthorised absence recorded by the inquiry officer or
determination by the disciplinary authority, the question arose whether
"unauthorised absence from duty" did tantamount to "failure of devotion to
duty" or "behaviour unbecoming of a government servant". It is observed as
under:-
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
8 WA-261-2024
conducting full fledged departmental enquiry, on the basis of the evidence on
record, came to the conclusion that the appellant is a habitual delinquent and
is unfit to continue to render services in a highly disciplined force like the
police, as all other means of his correction have failed. Therefore, the orders
of the authorities as well as the writ court are just and proper. Learned
counsel further argued that it is a settled legal position that the orders
impugned are not liable to be interfered with for the reason that the same
have been passed by the competent authority after following due procedure.
To buttress his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case reported in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610,
wherein principles regarding judicial review of disciplinary proceedings have
been reiterated. and it has been held thus:-
Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors on 24 August, 2009
In the case of Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri reported
in (2009) 15 SCC 620, the Supreme Court of India discussed the concept of
judicial review in the matter of Departmental Enquiry while dealing with the
matter of unauthorised absence from duty for six months, and held thus:-
State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008
In one of the matters relating to unauthorised absence and the view
expressed by the Apex court in State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla , reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 469 held as under:-
Rajinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 30 September, 2015
6. It is not in serious dispute that the appellant is a
serious patient of tuberculosis. According to the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority,
the appellant became completely unfit for service in
view of the background of the unauthorised absence on
many occasions. Once a person is found unfit for
service on account of intermittent and unauthorised
absence for which the delinquent though has a
reasonable explanation, no doubt, there is no point in
continuing him in service either by reverting him or by
imposing punishments like stoppage of increment, etc.
But the question is whether dismissal is the only option
in such situations where an employee is found unfit for
service. We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline
of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined
force. However, in the factual background of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 23-02-2026
12:35:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15167
16 WA-261-2024
appellant, which we have referred to above, the
disciplinary authority or at least the appellate authority,
should have considered whether a punishment other
than dismissal would have been appropriate and
whether dismissal is the only punishment available and
appropriate in the circumstances. The fact that different
punishments are prescribed under the Rules shows that
there is a discretion vested in the competent authority to
decide what should be the proper punishment taking
note of the nature of misconduct, its gravity and its
impact on the service. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case, the disciplinary authority
has to take a proper decision on punishment."
1