Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Birendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Assam and Ors. - (High Court of Gauhati) (22 Mar 2022)

Absence from duty without proper intimation is a grave offence warrants removal from service

MANU/GH/0171/2022

Service

The petitioner's case is that he was dismissed from service vide impugned Order issued by the Commandant, 4th Assam Police Battalion, for unauthorized absence w.e.f. 27.04.2011 and has prayed for setting aside the said impugned order.

In the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India, the Apex Court has held that absence from duty without proper intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service, which is statutory prescribed. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. The only reason given by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence was that he was mentally ill. Assuming that the petitioner was mentally ill, there must have been some intimation made by the petitioner himself or his relatives with regard to the alleged illness.

It is also an admitted fact that no application for leave was made by the petitioner, his mother, his wife, or any of his friends or relatives stating that the petitioner was mentally ill. The facts of the present case also show that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. However, the said issue was not a part of the memo of charge furnished against the petitioner.

As unauthorized absence is a misconduct and though notices and the enquiry report were sent to the petitioner in the address given in his service book, there was no response from the petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded as per procedure and the petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service.

There has been no procedural irregularities in conducting the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner and the subsequent order of dismissal. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. Petition dismissed.

Tags : DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING   DISMISSAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved