Supreme Court:Employee can not be held guilty for unauthorized absence from duty if absence is due to compelling circumstances

The question whether 'unauthorized absence from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is willful or because of compelling circumstances.

17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be willful.

18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government servant.

19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2106 of 2012 

Decided On: 15.02.2012

Krushnakant B. Parmar  Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ.

Citation: (2012) 3 SCC 178

Print Page

Whether Wrong understanding of award amount to contempt of court?

From the stand adopted by the newspaper establishments in the various counter affidavits filed; from the statements made in the reports submitted by the Labour Commissioners of different States from time to time; and also from the written arguments filed and the oral submissions advanced it is clear that part implementation/non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award by the concerned newspaper establishments is on account of what the said establishments have perceived to be the scope and ambit of the Majthia Wage Board Award as approved and notified by the Central Government, the challenge to which has been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. The stand taken for what is alleged to be non-implementation or partial implementation of the Award, as may be, having clearly stemmed from the understanding of the Award of the concerned newspaper establishments in a particular manner, it is our considered view that the said establishments cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. At best, the default alleged has taken place on account of a wrong understanding of the Award as upheld by this Court. This would not amount to wilful default so as to attract the liability of civil contempt as defined Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The default alleged though is unmistakably evident to us, in the absence of any wilful or deliberate intention to commit the same cannot make any of the newspaper establishments liable for contempt. On the other hand, they are entitled to one more opportunity to implement the Award in its proper spirit and effect in the light of what we now propose to say.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 411 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, 

Decided On: 19.06.2017

Avishek Raja and Ors.

Vs.

Sanjay Gupta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, JJ.

Print Page

Whether person can be held guilty for breach of injunction order if there is unintentional disobedience?

 It is settled position that before a party can be punished for disobeying order under Rule 2-A of Order 39, it must be established by the other party that the order which is alleged to have been disobeyed was clear, unambiguous and the party was not under a bona fide apprehension as to the scope of such an order. It is equally true that when the injunction is in force, irrespective of the legality of the orders, the party is bound to obey the orders of the Court. In case of disobedience; such a party is liable to be proceeded under Order 39, Rule 2A(1) of the Code. The Jurisdiction of the Court to punish a contumacious party is to vindicate the majesty of rule of law. It is not intended to benefit the parties. It is equally settled that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and their servants etc. from doing certain activity, the persons who are not party to the lis, cannot be held responsible in case of disobedience of the orders.
It is well settled that it is only wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which invites punitive action depriving a person of his personal liberty and property. The expression "wilful" means a deliberate or voluntary or Intentional Act. Unintentional disobedience is not enough to justify an action against the defaulter under Rule 3 of Order 39.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

F.A.O. Nos. 319 and 426 of 2001

Decided On: 08.01.2003

 Sushil Mittal and Anr.
Vs.
 R.D. Bhardwaj and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kamlesh Sharma, Actg. C.J. and K.C. Sood, J.

Citation: 2004(1) Civil court cases341 HP

Print Page