Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanabasappa Sangappa vs The Borad Of Directors on 7 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.56747/2017 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SANABASAPPA SANGAPPA
MARADI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. SANGAPPA,
R/O. BELUR AT & POST,
BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BORAD OF DIRECTORS/
APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.B. ANNEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEARING NO.KST/CO/DISP/D3/D1368/2129/
2015-16 DATED 12.03.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
22/01/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner who was working as Divisional
Superintendent, while he was working as an Assistant
Mechanical Engineer in Divisional Workshop Kalaburagi, for
his unauthorised absence from 11.06.2014 to 02.01.2015
without prior permission from his superiors or without
sanction of any kind of leave and inspite of call letters, the
petitioner having not reported for duty, was issued with
charge sheet. Petitioner replied denying the charges levelled
against him, enquiry officer was appointed, proceedings were
conducted and report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer
holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The Disciplinary
Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and on
the material placed before it, passed an order of dismissal of
the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred before the
appellate authority was rejected.
2. Petitioner is termed as workman and the
respondent is termed as Corporation/authority for the sake
of convenience.
3. Heard Sri Mukkannappa S.B., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Anneppanavar,
learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that, though the petitioner had submitted leave application,
the refusal of leave was not communicated to the petitioner.
Learned counsel would contend that the notices sent through
the security personnel as contended by the Corporation,
however, no records are forthcoming for having served
notices on the petitioner and in the absence of any evidence,
recording that the delinquent remained absent uauthorisedly,
the order of the Disciplinary Authority was not justified,
learned counsel would contend that the petitioner specifically
contended before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority that the absence of the petitioner is not intentional,
but due to bona fide reasons and the dismissal of the
petitioner from service is disproportionate to the misconduct.
5. Learned counsel would contend that there was
compelling circumstances that has been explained by the
petitioner-workman by letters seeking for leave for various
periods on the ground that the petitioner is attending civil
services examination, was preparing for KPSC examination
and on medical ground. The respondent-corporation did not
communicate regarding the consideration or refusal of the
leave application and as such, the order of dismissal
warrants interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, while justifying the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority, would contend that the
petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 11.06.2014
to 02.01.2015 and the petitioner was absent without
submitting leave application. It is contended that, despite the
endorsement issued by the Disciplinary Authority calling
upon the petitioner to join the duty, the petitioner-workman
has not given proper reply and he has abstained from duty.
Learned counsel would contend that the call letters were
addressed to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the
petitioner, inspite of which, without permission from the
Corporation, the petitioner has unauthorisedly remained
absent. Learned counsel would contend that, in the absence
of any material produced by the petitioner to establish his
bone fides for absence from duty, the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority were justified in passing the
order of dismissal and the same does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions urged by the parties and perused the material on
record.
8. Charges levelled against the petitioner-workman
was, for being unauthorisedly absent from duty from
11.06.2014 to 02.01.2015 without prior permission of his
superiors and without sanction of any kind of leave, which is
violative of Leave Regulations, 1964 (part III)(5) and also
1971 Conduct Rules, C&D Rules, 1971 (3)(i)(ii)(iii). The
documents produced by the reporting officer were Exs.M-1 to
M-9. The reporting officer categorically stated that,
(i) The delinquent has obtained leave on two
occasions earlier on the reason for attending the examination
of Civil Service, 2014 and again submitted his leave
application for grant of leave from 11.06.2014 to
31.10.2014.
(ii) Sanction of leave from 11.06.2014 to 31.10.2014
was rejected and asked him to report for duty immediately.
(iii) Reporting Officer further stated that inspite of
request letters and call letters sent to him that the
delinquent did not report to duty and remained absent.
(iv) Again the delinquent on 27.10.2014 submitted
application requesting for sanction of leave from 01.11.2014
to 31.12.2014 on medical grounds without enclosing the
medical certificate.
(v) The same was rejected and submitted his report
to the managing director for initiating action against the
delinquent regarding his unauthorised absence.
9. M-1 to M-9 were got marked on behalf of the
management. Ex.M-1 is the letter dated 20.06.2014
(endorsement). M-2 call letter 04.08.2014, M-3 call letter
dated 14.08.2014, Ex.M-4 call letter dated 27.08.2014, M-5
call letter dated 03.09.2014 (endorsement), M-6 call letter
dated 06.11.2014, M-7 call letter dated 08.01.2015, M-8
report of DC dated 11.09.2014 and M-9 report of DC dated
09.12.2014.
10. The evidence of reporting officer was considered
by the authority and arrived at a conclusion that the
delinquent unauthorisedly remained absent from duty from
11.06.2014 to 02.01.2015, the main contention of the
petitioner is that though he had applied for leave from
11.06.2014 to 31.08.2014, and again another leave
application to sanction leave for the period from 01.09.2014
to 31.10.2014 on medical ground, the same having not
answered, the dismissal of the petitioner from service is not
justified. Application for leave sought for by the petitioner
on 09.06.2014 for the period from 11.06.2014 to 31.08.2014
was on the ground that he wanted leave for "examination
preparation". Petitioner contends that he had to appear for
the UPSC exams and as such, leave was sought.
11. Further, on 03.01.2015, sought for leave from
01.01.2015 to 02.01.2015 on the ground that he was
suffering from viral fever along with the medical certificate,
wherein it was mentioned that from 01.11.2014 to
31.12.2014 the period of absence from duty was necessary
due to ill-health. The material on record reveals that the
Divisional Controller had issued an endorsement to the leave
application submitted from 11.06.2014 to 02.01.2015 stating
that there was no sanction of leave and without taking
permission the petitioner is absent from duty. Several call
notices were issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2014,
27.08.2014, 03.09.2014 and 06.11.2014 despite which the
petitioner did not join the duty, the petitioner was
unauthorisedly absent from duty without the permission of
the Corporation and without assigning any reason. In the
departmental proceedings it was held that the absence is
wilful and the absence amounts to misconduct. It is well
settled that the absence from duty should be wilful or
because of compelling circumstances. The compelling
circumstances that meet the employee from abstaining from
duty were such that it was beyond his control, like illness,
accident, hospitalisation etc., in such case, the employee
cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or
behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant.
12. In the instant case, the reason sought by the
petitioner for grant of leave from 11.06.2014 to 02.01.2015
was on 3 counts:
i) Leave from 11.06.2014 to 31.08.2014 was on the
ground of attending the UPSC examination.
ii) From 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2014 on the medical
ground without medical certificate.
iii) From August to November, it is unexplained.
iv) From 01.01.2015 to 02.01.2015, is on medical
ground.
- 10 -
v) Again from 22.06.2015 to 20.09.2015 on the
ground of KPSC examination preparation.
13. The entire material on record would evidence that
the petitioner has abstained from work wilfully and without
any compelling circumstances. The decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Krushnakanth B.Parmar vs. Union of
India and another1 (Krushnakanth B.Parmar), relied upon
by the petitioner counsel was in a circumstance where the
Disciplinary Authority failed to prove that the absence from
duty was wilful, and no such finding has been given by the
enquiry officer or the appellate authority.
14. In the instant case, the perusal of the order of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority clearly
evidence that a finding has been recorded categorically that
the absence of the petitioner is wilful, without obtaining
leave and without any compelling circumstances. The Apex
Court, in the case of Krushnakanth B.Parmar stated supra,
(2012) 3 SCC 178
- 11 -
held that the question whether the absence is wilful or
because of compelling circumstances has to be decided by
the Disciplinary Authority, which the disciplinary authority
has considered and rightly passed the order of dismissal.
15. In the decision of Smt. P.Latha vs. The
Assistant General Manager2, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court held that the Disciplinary Authority is required to hold
that the absence is willful, placing reliance on the decision of
the Apex Court in Krushnakanth B.Parmar. The other
decisions relied by the petitioner in the case of R.H.Mokashi
vs. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC3 and in KPTCL MRS
Division, Shivamoga Vs. Sri S.KIRAN4 have placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in
Krishnakanth, in that circumstances, held that the
workman was not wilfully absent from his duty and sufficient
ground was made out for remaining absent. This Court has
absolutely no quarrel to the decisions in the context of the
W.P.No.24012/2014 C/w. W.P.No.34905/2014
- 12 -
Disciplinary Authority have to give a categorical finding about
the absence on the part of the delinquent is willful or
because of compelling circumstances. The disciplinary
authority has given categorical finding that the petitioner has
willfully remained absent from duty without any compelling
circumstances.
16. In the result, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the order of disciplinary authority and appellate
authority does not warrant any interference and accordingly,
this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The impugned orders by the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority stands confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE
S*
