S. C. SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-91
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 21,2006

S. C. Saxena Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ASHOK KUMAR BAGDI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-7-274] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-286] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-278] [REFERRED]
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-414] [REFERRED TO]
JEETENDRA SINGH KSHETRY VS. DIRECTOR NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH & TRAINING AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
PRASUN KANTI BHAUMIK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
SYED HILAL AHAMD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF J & K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-539] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANTA KUMAR GOUDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
L. IMOCHA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT RAM GAUTAM VS. H.P.CIVIL SUPPLIES [LAWS(HPH)-2007-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
S UMARANI VS. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYATS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-437] [REFERRED TO]
N. SADANANDA SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
MD. AYUB VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH CHOUDHARY VS. JODHPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KUMAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-5-164] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. YOGENDER MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-649] [REFERRED]
N.K. CHAWLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2013-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINI BHIMRAO SONAKE VS. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
D. RAMKUMAR VS. PONDICHERRY SOCIETY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
BANSHRAJ RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-503] [REFERRED TO]
CONSTABLE 316 CP DINESH CHANDRA MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-487] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA SHUKLA VS. U.O.I. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-261] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT NARAYAN RAI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
S K TANDON VS. EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-152] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV-VANI OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD. AND ORS. VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPN. (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GAURI DUTT VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-423] [REFERRED TO]
SURYAKANT GAJANAN GAWAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
MASTAN NABISHA MURSHAD VS. EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY) [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH KUMAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN.SECY.CHIKITSA VIBHAG U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-290] [REFERRED TO]
MIR AURANGZAB VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-224] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. VS. SURENDRA CHANDRA DAS [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
K VISHWANATHAN VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY INDIAN BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-304] [REFERRED TO]
T. MHONYAMO TSOPOE VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI TIWARI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-207] [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN BHATIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-167] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRADEEP SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2017-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
T JAYAPANDI VS. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-271] [REFERRED TO]
K. RADHAKRISHNA VS. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
KABUL CHANDRA SAIKIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
N. SOMORJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN MANDAL S/O SHRI SHANKAR CHAND MANDAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
NASEEM BANO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
PARMA SHIVAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2012-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM MANNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOLINGSON TONGSIN ANAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
PORESH KUMAR NATH VS. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR OJHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2008-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR BISWAL VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM KHATRI VS. RAJ CIVIL SERVICES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHARMA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL (WORKS) C.P.W.D. AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VERMA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN CHAND AND OTHERS VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2016-7-31] [REFERRED]
RUBUL ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2020-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ADHAR MAURYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-182] [REFERRED TO]
TULA RAM SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAS SIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
TOUFIQ RIZWAN VS. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-290] [REFERRED]
H.K. SARWATA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
PREMLAL PANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND 3 ORS. VS. FAGUNI CHARAN BARIK [LAWS(ORI)-2009-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
S. THIRUARASU VS. NLC INDIA LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-587] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV-VANI OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD VS. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VS. OMPRAKASH GHANSHYAMDAS [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-183] [REFERRED TO]
R.B. MALL VS. GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-186] [REFERRED TO]
ST.JOHNS ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. EDUCATION OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN SHARMA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
G S NEGI VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-225] [REFERRED]
SANJAY NATH TIWARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-175] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2014-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
PARAM SINGH AND 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZUR RAHAMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-296] [REFERRED]
KUHELIKA GUHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
THOKCHOM VIKRAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SAMANTARAY VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF [LAWS(ORI)-2014-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
S.THIRUARASU VS. NLC INDIA LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-484] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a case of a recalcitrant government servant who thinks that leave ought to be granted to him as of right, because the Government, in its magnanimity, has permitted government servants to accumulate unduly large amount of leave under the Rules.
(2.)The appellant was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Intelligence Bureau. Between 14.02.1989 to 16.02.1989, he remained absent and claimed that he had telephonically conveyed information to the Section Officer about his inability to attend work on account of illness. By a memorandum dated 16.02.1989/17.02.1989 the appellant was considered as being unauthorisedly absent from duty and was extended the courtesy of the said memorandum served by home delivery. As a consequence, the appellant was issued a warning on 2.03.1989 warning him to abstain from taking leave frequently and advising him that he should get over the habit of taking leave frequently in future because of which office work suffered. He was also warned that otherwise disciplinary action would be taken. As expected, the appellant made a representation against the said warning but his representation came to be ignored.
(3.)On 6.07.1989 the appellant was transferred by an order from the headquarters at New Delhi to Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Tezpur. A relieving order was passed on the same day. According to the respondents, the appellant was relieved on the said day. According to the appellant, however, the relieving order was served on him on 28.07.1989. Although, the relieving order was treated as being retrospectively effective from 6.07.1989, nothing really turns on this. The appellant attended work on 7.07.1989 and 8.07.1989 and 9.07.1989 were Saturday and Sunday. He applied for earned leave for 10.07.1989 and 11.07.1989. It is the case of the appellant that he fell ill on 11.07.1989 as a result of which he could not join the office at Tezpur to which he was transferred. He went on submitting leave applications supported by medical certificates from doctors who were not authorised under the applicable disciplinary rules. For the entire period from 11.07.1989 to 20.11.1990, the appellant remained absent and his only reply was that he was sick. On 23.11.1990, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet alleging unauthorised absence from duty against him for the entire period. He replied to the said charge-sheet and his only defence was that he was sick and, therefore, he could not report for duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar where he had been subsequently transferred.


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