Writ appeal challenging dismissal from service for repeated unauthorized absence. The bench held the dismissal was disproportionate considering the employee's illness claim. Relief granted by reducing penalty to compulsory retirement.
Order of dismissal altered to compulsory retirement with entitlement to permissible monetary benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S. WA No.101413/2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN :
SRI. SIDDAYYA S/O GURAYYA HADAGALI AGE: 47 YRS, OCC: NIL R/O AT POST DONI, TAL: MUNDAGARI, DIST: GADAG.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADV.)
AND :
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, R/W RULE 26 AND 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 AS AMENDED, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.10.2015, PASSED IN W.P. NO.100041/2015 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY WRIT PETITION W.P. NO.100041/2015 BE ALL0WED WITH COST.
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent-Corporation.
3
sympathetic consideration and has been pleased to affirm the penalty imposed and rejected the dispute raised by the appellant.
4
there are several employees, who have remained absent for months and years together, but no action is taken. That the corporation has not initiated any action as against such employees. Hence, on parity, the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for.
5
authority has failed to hold that the absence is willful and on account of the same it was pleased to hold that the misdemeanor did not amount to misconduct and on account of such finding, this Court deemed it fit to set aside the punishment imposed. In the instant case, the petitioner has absented himself on 25 occasions and has also suffered punishment imposed by the employer and has also admitted the same.
6
with regard to his illness has neither been considered, nor has it been rebutted.
7
Keeping in view the above factors, we are of the opinion that punishment imposed could be reduced and modified to one of compulsory retirement. The writ Appeal is partly allowed and order of dismissal is altered to one of compulsory retirement. The appellant would be entitled to such monetary benefits as permissible under law.
Sd/JUDGE
MNS/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty of dismissal for unauthorized absence is disproportionate given the petitioner's admission of illness and lack of demonstrated loss to the corporation.
Whether the High Court can modify the punishment imposed by the lower courts in service disciplinary proceedings.
What is the appropriate lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal for the employee involved.
SRI. SIDDAYYA
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
G. NARENDAR
BELLUNKE A.S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
