Mandeep Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10217 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11897 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 10218 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.22617 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11897 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 10218 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.22617 of 1994)
Petitioner: Mandeep Kumar etc.
Respondent: State of Haryana and Anr. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10217 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11897 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 10218 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.22617 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11897 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 10218 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.22617 of 1994)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 1995
Appearances:
Mr. Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Ms. Pratibha Jin, Advocates for the Appellant in C.A. No. 10217/95.
Mr. B.R. Saini, and Mr. M.L. Chhiber, Advocates for the Appellant in C.A. No. 10218/95.
Ms. Nisha Bagachi, Advocates for Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Dismissal from Service
Dismissal from service – Absence from duty for two days without leave – Marginal lapse – Fresh opportunity to be given to improve performance – Reinstatement in service subject to the condition that if appellants absent themselves from duty without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, their services may be discharged – Appeals allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
C.A. NO. 10217/95
(@ SLP (C) NO.11897/94)
1. Leave granted.
2. In view of the fact that absence from duty from 2nd to 5th November, 1990 for nine days was already converted to casual leave, the absence from 27th and 28th January, 1991 and from 5th to 7th May, 1991 was for one day 23 hours and 30 minutes, practically two days, and from 1st to 3rd February, 1992, practically two days, being marginal lapse, on the part of the appellant, we, in the fact and circumstances of the case, think that he may be given a fresh opportunity to improve his excellence in the performance of his duty. If the appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, his services may be discharged. On reinstatement, pursuant to this order, the appellant would not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
C.A. NO.10218/95
(@ SLP (C) NO.22617/94)
4. Leave granted.
5. Appellant’s absence from duty on 3rd March, 1991, for 1 day, 6 hours and 35 minutes, on 26th April, 1991, for 10 hours and 35 minutes, on 22nd May, 1991, for 16 hours being marginal lapse on his part, we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, think that he may be given a fresh opportunity to improve his excellence in the performance of the duty. If the appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, his services may be discharged. On reinstatement, pursuant to this order, the appellant would not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
C.A. NO. 10217/95
(@ SLP (C) NO.11897/94)
1. Leave granted.
2. In view of the fact that absence from duty from 2nd to 5th November, 1990 for nine days was already converted to casual leave, the absence from 27th and 28th January, 1991 and from 5th to 7th May, 1991 was for one day 23 hours and 30 minutes, practically two days, and from 1st to 3rd February, 1992, practically two days, being marginal lapse, on the part of the appellant, we, in the fact and circumstances of the case, think that he may be given a fresh opportunity to improve his excellence in the performance of his duty. If the appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, his services may be discharged. On reinstatement, pursuant to this order, the appellant would not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
C.A. NO.10218/95
(@ SLP (C) NO.22617/94)
4. Leave granted.
5. Appellant’s absence from duty on 3rd March, 1991, for 1 day, 6 hours and 35 minutes, on 26th April, 1991, for 10 hours and 35 minutes, on 22nd May, 1991, for 16 hours being marginal lapse on his part, we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, think that he may be given a fresh opportunity to improve his excellence in the performance of the duty. If the appellant absents himself from duty without leave even on a single occasion during next two years, his services may be discharged. On reinstatement, pursuant to this order, the appellant would not be eligible for payment of arrears of salary.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
