'Habitual Absenteeism In Government Services Is Not Acceptable...', Important Decision Of Punjab Haryana High Court.
Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee of Haryana Roadways. The employee was continuously absent from duty without permission. Describing discipline as paramount in government services, the court said that relief cannot be given to an employee who is repeatedly absent. The High Court accepted the appeal of the State Government, overturning the decision of the Appellate Court, as the employee was given adequate opportunities.
Continuous absence from government services is unacceptable: High Court upheld the dismissal of a roadways employee.
State Bureau, Chandigarh. Punjab and Haryana High Court has termed the dismissal of an employee of Haryana Roadways as completely legal, stating that discipline is paramount in government services. The court made it clear that relief cannot be given to an employee who repeatedly remains absent without permission, especially when the departmental action has been taken in a lawful manner.
Along with this, the court overturned the decision given by the appellate court in favor of the employee and accepted the appeal of the state government. This decision was given by Justice Sudipti Sharma on the second regular appeal filed by the Haryana government, in which the decision of the appellate court of Hisar was challenged. According to the case, employee Harnoop Singh was given the job of a helper in Haryana Roadways on compassionate grounds after the death of his father.
In the year 1997, he was transferred to Karnal Depot. It was clear from the records that the employee remained absent from duty without permission for long periods of time. The department repeatedly issued charge sheets to him, conducted investigations and also took punitive action like 'leave without pay' and stopping salary increment.
Despite this, there was no improvement in his behaviour. The court observed that every time the employee was given notice, an inquiry officer was appointed and an opportunity of personal hearing was also provided. Despite this, the employee could neither give a satisfactory answer nor present any concrete medical evidence in support of his absence.
It also emerged that the employee participated in the investigation process, but neither cross-examined the witnesses nor presented any evidence. The appellate court had ruled the dismissal illegal while giving relief to the employee, but the High Court called it a misinterpretation of the law. The High Court clarified in its decision that treating the period of absence as 'leave without pay' is only an administrative formality, due to which the payment of salary is stopped.
This does not stop the misconduct of the employee nor does the departmental punishment automatically get cancelled. The court said that the record of the employee shows that he was repeatedly absent without permission and despite small punishments given by the department, he did not improve. In such a situation, dismissal from service is neither arbitrary nor against the principles of natural justice.
Accepting the appeal of the Haryana Government, the High Court canceled the decision of the appellate court and restored the decision of the trial court. The High Court has made it clear that indiscipline in government services, especially persistent absenteeism, is not acceptable under any circumstances and the courts will not interfere in such cases after following the departmental procedure.