- News>
- India
SC upholds dismissal for remaining absent during suspension
New Delhi, Sept 22: The Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the Punjab government to dismiss a police head constable from service for proceeding on leave without prior permission even though he was under suspension for certain other alleged misconducts.
New Delhi, Sept 22: The Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the Punjab government to dismiss a police head constable from service for proceeding on leave without prior
permission even though he was under suspension for certain other alleged misconducts.
The judgement was given by a bench comprising Chief Justice V N Khare and Justice S B Sinha while setting aside the order of the high court which had upheld the trial court's
view that as the policeman was under suspension he was not required to take leave.
The head constable, Charanjit Singh, was placed under suspension in 1984 as an inquiry was ordered into the misconducts alleged against him. While under suspension, he absented himself on three occasions without any kind of leave from the superintendent of police. In view of the unauthorised absence, the state government initiated departmental inquiry. Singh gave the explanation that he had gone to attend a court case at Patiala where he had learnt that his wife was ill, and therefore, he went to his home town and in such circumstances that he could not take any permission for leave.
After considering his explanation, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on April 15, 1984. However, the disciplinary authority ordered that the period of absence from duty would be treated as leave without pay.
Bureau Report
The head constable, Charanjit Singh, was placed under suspension in 1984 as an inquiry was ordered into the misconducts alleged against him. While under suspension, he absented himself on three occasions without any kind of leave from the superintendent of police. In view of the unauthorised absence, the state government initiated departmental inquiry. Singh gave the explanation that he had gone to attend a court case at Patiala where he had learnt that his wife was ill, and therefore, he went to his home town and in such circumstances that he could not take any permission for leave.
After considering his explanation, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on April 15, 1984. However, the disciplinary authority ordered that the period of absence from duty would be treated as leave without pay.
Bureau Report