Writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order treating a respondent's absence as unauthorized and ordering salary recovery. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, allowing terminal benefits due to belated action by the department.
Time granted by one month to make payment to the respondent.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.13248 OF 2020 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
NEW DELHI-110 001.
NEW DELHI-110 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: TIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE, CGSC ADVOCATE(PH))
AND:
SMT.M.KALAIVANI WIFE OF LATE.DHAMODHARAN C. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER
2
RESIDING AT NO.3/1 KRISHNAPPA GARDEN VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 047.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.R.HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.12.2019 MADE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00647/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The legality and correctness of order dated 11/12/2019 (Annexure-A) passed in O.A.No.170/00647/2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of brevity) is called in question in this appeal.
3
respondent was working as Senior Superintendent in the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru. She submitted an application on 04/03/2019 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 01/05/2019. She also submitted the application on 04/03/2019 seeking 47 days of earned leave with effect from 05.03.2019 and to report for duty on 01.05.2019. It is stated that the respondent was promoted as Assistant Passport Officer on 28/03/2019, while she was on leave. Immediately, she cancelled her leave and reported to duty on 29/03/2019 which was approved by the office on 09/04/2019. Petitioner No.3 vide memorandum dated 25/04/2019 intimated the respondent that her request for voluntary retirement has not been considered favourbly, as it was a conditional request. She was given liberty to submit her request in the revised proforma. Against rejection of her request, the respondent approached the Central Passport Organization, New Delhi, and in the meantime, the Deputy Passport Officer issued the memorandum dated 06/05/2019
4
directing the respondent to show cause as to why her absence from 05/03/2019 till 28/03/2019 should not be considered as unauthorized absence and why disciplinary enquiry should not be initiated. The respondent submitted her reply challenging the proposed disciplinary action. Thereafter, it was communicated to the respondent that her absence to the duty from 05/03/2019 to 28/03/2019 is treated as dies-non for all purposes and ordered recovery of the salary paid to her during the said period. The respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2019 and she challenged the memorandum dated 30/05/2019 treating her absence as dies-non, before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed under the impugned order and directed the petitioners to settle her terminal and other benefits in accordance with law.
5
The respondent had moved the application on 04/03/2019 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 01/05/2019 which was rejected by the petitioners. In the meantime, the respondent had filed an application seeking earned leave for 47 days and gone on leave with effect from 05/03/2019. Admittedly, there was no communication to the respondent about the said application till 25/04/2019. By the time, when she was informed that her request for earned leave is not considered favourbly, the respondent was already promoted to the higher cadre as Assistant Passport Officer and she reported to the duty in the higher cadre on 29/03/2019 which was approved by the petitioners. Even it is admitted that the salary payable to the respondent for the month of March, 2019 during which period, she remained absent to her duty, was paid in full without any objection. It was only on 25/04/2019, the respondent was communicated that her request for earned leave was not considered favourably and thereafter, memorandum was issued on 06/05/2019 calling for
6
explanation as to why the period of absence should not be considered as dies-non. No disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent and she was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2019. It was only on the previous day i.e., on 30/05/2019 the respondent was communicated that her absence from 05/03/2019 to 28/03/2019 was treated as dies-non for all purposes and ordered for recovery of the salary paid to her during the said period.
the earned leave she had applied, the petitioners could have rejected the application and communicated the same within a reasonable time. But till 25/04/2019, no such communication was communicated. In the meantime, the respondent was promoted to the higher cadre and she was permitted to report for duty on 29/03/2019. Even the salary for the month of March, 2019 was paid without raising any objection. She was further permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2019.
7
There is no justification by the petitioners for their belated action taken on the eve of the retirement of the respondent. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal quashing Annexure-A9 by directing the petitioners to settle her terminal and other benefits without any delay.
dismissed.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a contempt petition has been filed by the respondent and therefore, some time may be granted to make payment to her.
In the circumstances, we extend time by one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to make payment to the respondent in accordance with her entitlement.
Ordered accordingly.
8
In view of the disposal of the writ petition, IA.1 of
2020 stands disposed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order treating the respondent's absence as dies-non and ordering recovery of salary?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent to receive terminal benefits despite belated findings of unauthorized absence?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
SMT.M.KALAIVANI
B.V. NAGARATHNA
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
