Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 18 November, 2019 cites

Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors on 24 August, 2009

31. It is apt to note here that in the said Mukul Kumar Choudhuri case [Coal India 7/20 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.8275 of 2017 Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 499] the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for six months and admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he neither had any intention nor desire to disobey the order of superior authority or violate any of the rules or regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. As has been seen from the analysis made by the High Court, it has given emphasis on past misconduct of absence and first time desertion and thereafter proceeded to apply the doctrine of proportionality. The aforesaid approach is obviously incorrect. It is tell-tale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave 8/20 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.8275 of 2017 at any time and also knock at the doors of the Court at his own will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 113 - Full Document
1