Allowed

Smt. Jyothi B R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2022WP/6712/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a suspension order against a teacher. The court held that mere rejection of a leave application and subsequent non-reporting did not constitute gross dereliction of duty under Rule 10(1)(d) of the service rules. The suspension order was quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to resume duty.

What did the court decide?

The order of suspension dated 20.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed, and the petitioner is permitted to resume duty forthwith.

Smt. Jyothi B R Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.6712/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI JYOTHI B R, W/O SRI. PARMESH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, N.E.S COLONY, HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK, R/AT. ANJANADRI NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, BASAVA LAYOUT, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ONKARA.K.B, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (D.D.P.I) (ADMINISTRATION),

¶15

¶16

ST. JOSEPH CONVENT ROAD, MANIYUR, CHITRADURGA – 577501.

¶17

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (BEO), HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST-577526.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/03/2022 IN APPLICATION NO.6166/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶24

The matter is squarely governed by the provisions of Rule 10 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

¶25

The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is working as a teacher applied for Child Care Leave on 29.11.2021 for a period of fifteen days in order to take care

¶26

¶27

of her sick daughter. The leave application came to be rejected and the same was communicated to her on 09.12.2021. The petitioner, who is before the Court asserts that no rejection order has been served upon her.

¶28

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was communicated on 09.12.2021 to attend for an enquiry initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by her against her co-workers and apart from that, there has been no communication rejecting the application.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that the order rejecting the leave application has been communicated.

¶30

Be that as it may, the fact remains that an application for leave has been presented and that being an undisputed fact, whether mere rejection of a leave application and non-reporting for duty pursuant to rejection of leave application can be construed as one of the grounds

¶31

¶32

enumerated under Rule 10 (1) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 to visit an employee with suspension. Rule 10 (1) of the Rules, reads as under:-

¶33

“10. Suspension.- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf may place a Government servant under suspension.-

¶34

(a) Where there is prima facie evidence to show that he was caught red-handed while accepting gratification other than legal remuneration by the persons authorized to investigate under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other law;

¶35

(aa) where there is prima facie evidence to show that he was found in possession or had at any time during the discharge of his official duty been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known source of income, by the persons authorized to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other law;

¶36

(b) where a charge-sheet is filed before competent Court against him for any offence involving moral turpitude committed in the course of his duty; or

¶37

(c) where a charge-sheet is filed before the competent Court against him on charge of corruption, embezzlement or criminal misappropriation of Government money;

¶38

¶39

(d) Where there is prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty against him;

¶40

[Provided that, where the order of suspension is made by an authority empowered by Government in this behalf which is lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.]”

¶41

It is contended by learned High Court

¶42

Government Pleader that the conduct of the petitioner attracts grounds enumerated under Rule 10 (1) (d) of the Rules. In our opinion, we are constrained to disagree with

¶43

the learned High Court Government Pleader in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the case and there appears to be a history and the petitioner appears to be at loggerheads with her colleagues and supervisors and in that view of the matter and the receipt of the leave application being undisputed, we are of the opinion that the same would not amount to a gross dereliction of duty.

¶44

Learned High Court Government Pleader has not

¶45

placed on record any other material which would enable us to appreciate the conduct of the petitioner otherwise. It is

¶46

¶47

also relevant to note that the grounds for seeking leave are not disputed by the respondents. In that view of the matter also we are unable to accept the case of the respondents that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to gross dereliction of duty.

¶48

The petition is allowed. The order of suspension bearing No.E3:¥Áæ.±Á.².zÀÆgÀÄ:64/2021-22 dated 20.12.2021

¶49

passed by respondent No.2 is quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to resume duty forthwith.

¶50

Petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶51

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

dn/CT-HR

Smt. Jyothi B R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyothi B R 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Niranjana S

Sri. Shrirama Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Shahanajunnisa

Sri. Krishnappa. H. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Jenifer Lolita.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri Vs the State of Karnataka