Dismissed

Smt Pramila Cheriath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/28340/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order confirming the petitioner's dismissal. The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly found the petitioner's absence to be willful, as she refused to attend duty pending acquittal and failed to produce medical certificates, rendering the writ petition devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.28340/2017 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Smt.Pramila Cheriath, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.635/6/1, 46^th ‘A’ Cross, 3^rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560010.

¶11

… Petitioner

¶12

(By Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, K.G.S, M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001.

¶15

The Director of Pre University Education in Karnataka, Education Department, Palace Road, Bangalore-560001.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(By Sri. T.P.Sreenivasa, AGA)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in application No.12727/2002 at Annexure-D and consequently allow the application filed by the petitioner.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for Final Hearing , this day , S.SUJATHA. , made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.12727/2002 (‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

¶23

The facts in brief are that the petitioner claimed to

¶24

be a permanent employee of the respondents-State got transferred on 15.06.1998 from Government Junior College, Munireddy Palya, Bengaluru to Government Junior College, Channapatna. On medical grounds, she requested the first respondent to modify the Transfer Order, which was considered and a modified Transfer Order dated 13.05.1999 was issued posting the petitioner to Government Boys PreUniversity College, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. However, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent. Hence, Articles of

¶25

¶26

charge were issued by the second respondent on 01.06.2000 for having remained unauthorisedly absent for duty from 29.06.1998 and onwards to which the petitioner has given a reply on 19.06.2000. Considering the reply and providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and to cross-examine the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has presented the Report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The second Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2001 was issued by the second respondent and the same was accompanied with the Enquiry Report dated 04.01.2001, to which the petitioner submitted her representation dated 28.07.2001. Considering the said representation, disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal on 24.07.2002, which was challenged before the Tribunal in Application No.12727/2002 by the petitioner. The Tribunal passed an order on 29.07.2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, confirming the order of the dismissal passed by the first respondent – Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had remained absent only due to the medical reasons and as on the date of order of dismissal passed by the first respondent, the petitioner was in considerable length of service. Having regard to the nature of charges leveled against the petitioner and the medical grounds on which sanction of leave was sought by the petitioner, the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent is severe, shocking and disproportionate to the alleged gravity of misconduct. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KRISHNAKANTH B. PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 and the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.24012/2014 and connected matters dated 6.10.2015 would contend that in the absence of a finding regarding the willful unauthorized absence from duty by the enquiry authority as well as disciplinary authority, the impugned order of the Tribunal confirming the orders of the said authorities is bad in law and in the absence of such finding, any absence could not amount to misconduct. Thus,

¶29

¶30

learned counsel would submit that the order of the Tribunal impugned certainly calls for interference by this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents justifying the

¶32

impugned order inviting the attention of the Court to the Enquiry Report would submit that the modified Transfer Order dated 13.05.1999 indeed was notified to petitioner along with other 29 lecturers, on the Notice Board of the Pre-University besides communicating the same through registered post. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of same. Having regard to the attendant circumstances, the Enquiry Officer has categorically given a finding that the defence set up by the petitioner was for the reason of unauthorized absence/charges made against her, she had decided not to attend to the duties until she is acquitted from the said charges. It is further submitted that no medical certificate was produced by the petitioner beyond 13.10.1998 to take a defence of absence on the medical grounds. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has extensively considered these vital aspects in rejecting the application and the same deserves to be confirmed.

¶33

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

respective parties and perusing the material on record, we are

¶36

of the considered view that there is some force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State and the same stands on terra firma . As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner though was issued with the modified Transfer Order on 13.05.1999, she remained absent for the reasons best known to her and in the enquiry proceedings she has unequivocally stated that she had decided to remain absent until she is acquitted from the charges leveled against her. The leave application said to have been forwarded by the petitioner was only till 13.10.1998, further neither any leave application nor any Medical Certificate was furnished to explain her absence from

¶37

duty. Even in the reply to the charge memo and the representation in furtherance to the second Show Cause Notice, no satisfactory reasons have been explained for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duties from 29.06.1998. The conduct of the petitioner itself would indicate that her absence was willful. The enquiry authority has examined these aspects and has held the petitioner guilty

¶38

¶39

of the charges. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that there is no finding of the enquiry authority or the disciplinary authority to consider the absence of the petitioner otherwise than willful. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner supra , would not assist the the petitioner in any way.

¶40

The Tribunal having regard to these material aspects, has rightly dismissed the application which in our considered view does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶41

Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶42

Sd/- JUDGE

¶43

Sd/- JUDGE

¶44

Smt Pramila Cheriath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pramila Cheriath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs K Ramu

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Radhika Vs the Officer Commanding