MITHILESH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

HELD: 1. Absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removai from service. Therefore, mere making an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any consequence in the background of the strict requirement of giving proper intimation. Even if it is accepted that there was intimation, that by no such C imagination can be construed to be a proper intimation for diluting the requirement of obtaining permission before absenting from duty. Stress is on the expression "proor', it means appropriate in the required manner, fit, suitable, apt. The mere making of a request of leave, which has not been accepted is not a proper intimation. It cannot be said that the said word is a surplusage. (385-F-G) D

#2. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, and as a consequence a construction which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside word(s) in a statute as being inapposite surplusage; if they can have appropriate application in E circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of. the statute. In the interpretation of statutes the Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The authorities were, F therefore, justified in holding that he was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation. (385-F-H; 386-A)

3.1. The scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the G same. (386-B) S.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749; State