Karnataka High Court
Shahanaz Begum vs The Divisional Controller on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33709-DB
WA No. 1069 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SHAHANAZ BEGUM
D/O HUSSAIN SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A C/O MURTHUJA SHARIFF
8TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR
TUMKUR - 572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Digitally signed KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION,
by SHARADA
VANI B TUMKUR - 572 101.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
NO.4130/2019 DATED 13/03/2023 AND ii)GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF OR RELIEFS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33709-DB
WA No. 1069 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal calls in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 13.03.2023 whereby her case
in W.P.No.4130/2019 has been dismissed. The appellant in
the said writ petition had challenged the award dated
12.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Tumkur in I.D.No.3/2016 whereby, her dismissal from
service dated 13.10.2014 having been set at naught and
she was directed to be reinstated without continuity of
service and backwages.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently argues that once the reinstatement is directed
the continuity of service coupled with backwages is a must
and this law having been violated, the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. He presses into
service the Apex Court decision in Gurpreet Singh vs.
State of Punjab (2002) 9 SCC 492.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and having perused the appeal papers, we
decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in
NC: 2023:KHC:33709-DB
WA No. 1069 of 2023
agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge.
We notice that the appellant was dismissed from service
for being unauthorisedly absent from 16.01.2014 onwards.
Remaining absent from duty creates lot many problems to
the employer, apart from breeding indiscipline in any
industrial establishment. Ordinarily, such absence is
treated as a misconduct attracting major penalty, subject
to all just exceptions.
4. When the order of dismissal is set aside
although retaining the finding as to the culpable
misconduct, the reinstatement of the employee cannot be
with continuity of service nor with an award for
backwages. The Apex Court in Om Pal Singh vs.
Disciplinary Authority (2020) 3 SCC 103 at para 12 has
observed as under:-
"12. It was further held in the said judgment
that if reinstatement is a consequence of
imposition of a lesser punishment, neither
back wages nor continuity of service nor
consequential benefits follow as a natural or
necessary consequence of such
reinstatement. This Court went on to hold
that where the misconduct was held to be
proved, reinstatement by itself is a
NC: 2023:KHC:33709-DB
WA No. 1069 of 2023
consequential benefit arising from imposition
of a lesser punishment. However, this Court
was of the opinion that award of back wages
for the period when the employee has not
worked may amount to rewarding the
delinquent employee and punishing the
employer for taking action against the
misconduct committed by the employee,
which should be avoided."
5. There is yet another reason as to why we
decline indulgence in this appeal. Learned Trial Judge who
heard and decided I.D.No.3/2016 has considered all
aspects of the matter and in his discretion scaled down the
dismissal from service to an order of reinstatement sans
continuity of service and backwages. Cogent reasons have
been given for doing that, although the finding has to be
guilt has not been set at naught. This having been
examined in the right perspective, learned Single Judge
has dismissed the writ petition, that is treated under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the other Article
namely, Article 226 having been ornamentally employed in
the pleadings of the appellant. Ordinarily, such orders are
not appealable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961 vide Radhe Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath
NC: 2023:KHC:33709-DB
WA No. 1069 of 2023
(2015) 5 SCC 423. This has been followed by a Seven
Judge Bench decision of this Court in Tammanna vs.
Renuka ILR 2009 KAR 1207.
In the above facts and circumstances, this appeal
being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly
dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
