MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 11,2014

Mahinder Dutt Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KARUNA CHANDRA ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
UMA PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-603] [REFERRED]
G HARIRAM VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-390] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL SANWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-331] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKSHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-208] [REFERRED TO]
NAGO RAO TEMBURKAR VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2021-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI DIGAMBAR JONDHALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-284] [REFERRED TO]
S. TAMILARASI VS. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-268] [REFERRED TO]
HODIL SINGH VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
DIWARA MAGAN VS. DIVENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-1194] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYUT BARAN HALDER VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS VS. RAJ KUMARI AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. VS. NARESH LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
DAYANAND PASWAN VS. COAL INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(BOM)-2023-2-199] [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRASINH JORABHA JADEJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-192] [REFERRED TO]
JAI BHAGWAN VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-178] [REFERRED TO]
BULBULI GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-210] [REFERRED TO]
TMT. M.K. SIVAKAMI VS. HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-121] [REFERRED TO]
S. SURENDRAN VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF HQ [LAWS(KER)-2022-2-77] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By an office memorandum dated 26.10.1995, departmental action was initiated against the appellant who was then holding the post of Constable. He was then posted in the IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. The aforesaid action was initiated against the appellant on account of his continuous absence from duty with effect from 18.1.1995. He was served with absentee notice dated 25.5.1995 on 10.6.1995, wherein he was required to resume his duty. Failing which, he was informed that departmental action would be taken against him. The appellant neither resumed his duties, nor responded to the above absentee notice dated 25.5.1995. He was thereupon, issued a second absentee notice dated 24.8.1995, which was served on him on 10.9.1995. It is not a matter of dispute, that after initiating the above departmental proceedings against the appellant, he resumed his duties on 5.12.1995. It is therefore alleged, that his unauthorized and willful absence, extended to a period of 320 days 18 hours and 30 minutes.
(2.)Inspector Hari Darshan was appointed as the enquiry officer. After culmination of the departmental proceedings, the enquiry officer arrived at the conclusion, that the presenting officer had been successful in substantiating the charges leveled against the appellant. The above enquiry report was furnished to the appellant on 22.3.1996. Despite being required to respond to the same, the appellant did not file any reply. In the absence of any written reply, the appellant was required to appear in the "orderly room" on three occasions, for affording him a personal hearing. He ignored all the above notices, by not reporting for personal hearing.
(3.)Finding his willful and unauthorized absence from duty intolerable, specially in a disciplined force, the punishing authority expressed the view, that not taking stern action against the appellant, would create a bad impression, on the new entrants into police service. Finding the behaviour of the appellant incorrigible, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi by an order dated 17.5.1996, dismissed the appellant from service, with immediate effect. In the punishment order dated 17.5.1996 the disciplinary authority further directed, that the period of the appellant's absence from 18.1.1995 to 4.12.1995 (of 320 days, 18 hours and 30 minutes) would be treated as leave without pay.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.