Allowed

Mr.M.P. Goudar v. the I G-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner/

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2023WA/100131/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal and an application for additional documents. The Court set aside an order dismissing a writ petition concerning an employee's dismissal for unauthorized absence. It remanded the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration of the appellant's claim that his absence was to care for his paralysed father, after production of specific medical records.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Single Judge for fresh consideration and expeditious disposal.

Mr.M.P. Goudar Vs the I G-Cum-Chief Security… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100131 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. M.P. GOUDAR, AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC: EX-CONSTABLE IN RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, R/O: PANCHANAIKANAHATTI, CHIKKANANDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶14

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.16 11:01:27 +0530

¶15

THE I G-CUM-CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER/ RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, NEW GM’s BUILDING, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER/ RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, NEW GMS BUILDING, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

THE MANAGEMENT OF SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER/ RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSINER/ RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶21

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, AND IPF OFFICE OF DIVISIONAL SECURITY, COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED-14-03-2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 111626/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This intra Court appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.111626/2015 whereby the said petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶29

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

The material on record discloses that the appellant who was working as a constable in the respondents from 01.09.1998, remained absent from 30.09.2009 to 11.03.2010 for a period of 160 days.

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶32

According to the appellant, his father Late Parappa had a paralytic stroke in the year 2005, as a result of which, the appellant’s father was continuously bed ridden and was under treatment till his demise on 20.06.2011.

¶33

It is also contended by the appellant that during the aforesaid period of absence from 30.09.2009 to 11.03.2010, the health condition of his father deteriorated, as result of which, the appellant was constrained to remain in the house and take care of his father including taking him for medical treatment, hospitalization, etc. It is further contended that the appellant being the only son of his parents, there was nobody else available to look after or take care of his father and the appellant did not have any other option than to remain absent from duty and take care of his father.

¶34

However, the respondents noted the absence of the appellant and initiated disciplinary proceedings which culminated in penalty of dismissal dated 22.10.2010 on the ground of unauthorized absence. Being aggrieved by

¶35

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶36

the same, the appellant filed an appeal and revision petition which were also dismissed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority which were in turn challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who also proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶37

Perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the absence of documents not produced by the appellant to substantiate his contention that his father had undergone paralytic stroke in the year 2005 and was continuously under treatment, hospitalization, etc. In order to overcome the said findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, revisional authority and the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2020 seeking permission to produce additional documents comprising of medical records, death certificate, etc., in

¶38

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶39

relation to his deceased father. The said application is vehemently opposed by the respondents. Under these circumstances, in the light of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had not established his contention that his father was paralysed and his absence was due to the appellant being constrained to stay in the house to look after his father due to his ill-health, in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the said contention and to enable the learned Single Judge to reconsider the matter afresh by re-appreciating the entire material on record including additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant, we deem it just and proper to allow I.A.No.1/2020 and consequently, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge with a request for expeditious disposal of the petition.

¶40

In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶44

(ii) The impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.111626/2015 is hereby set aside.

¶45

(iii) I.A.No.1/2020 stands allowed and the documents produced along with same are received on record.

¶46

(iv) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by re-appreciating the entire material on record and also the additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A.No.1/2020.

¶47

Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file additional pleadings and produce additional documents which shall be considered by the learned Single Judge.

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10458-DB WA No. 100131 of 2018

¶49

All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is

¶50

expressed on the same.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25

Mr.M.P. Goudar v. the I G-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.P. Goudar v. the I G-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irene Power and Steel Company Vs Nirani Sugars Ltd.

Reshma W/O Razaksab Mulimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Suresh Vs S M Shantha Murthy S/O S.M. Thippeswamy

Smt. Bhavakana S/O Chandrakant Karvekar Vs Sri Reshma W/O Bhavakana Karvekar

Venkatesh S/O Bapu Bhomkar, Vs Rudresh D N S/O Nanjundaraya

Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited Vs Smt. Suvarna