Karnataka HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order denying leave sanction for long unauthorized absence. The Court held the petitioner failed to report duty, severe delay prejudiced the employer, and his grievance approach to the Chief Minister was improper, deeming the petition devoid of merits.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:5172-DB WP No. 3242 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3242 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. L NAGANNA, S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KOLLEGAL TALUK OFFICE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440. CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, R/AT NO.4/21A, STONEWELL STREET, BHEEMANAGAR, KOLLEGAL-571 440.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:5172-DB WP No. 3242 of 2021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA.,AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2020 PASSED ON APPLICATION NO.6417/2016 BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND FURTHER ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.6417/2016 OF THE PETITIONER AS PRAYER FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner was grieving before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal that his staying away from duty was treated as a long unauthorized absence and that the leave was not been sanctioned despite the same lying to his credit. The Tribunal in his Application No.1913/2021 made the order on 06.08.2021 whereby his prayer has been turned down.
submits that the long absence of the Petitioner was because of age related issues of his parents; Petitioner has got a lot of leave reserve in his account and therefore, the alleged unauthorized absence could have been regularized by sanctioning the leave covering the same period. This having not happened, he argues, there is fault lying on the part of authorities which aspect also not duly treated by the Tribunal. So arguing, he prays for the allowing of Petition.
submits that the Petitioner was directed to report for duty at the Government Engineering College at Kushalnagar vide order dated 01.01.2011; despite notices, he never bothered to report for duty and that has put the Institution to a lot of hardship; the period of unauthorized absence being too long, leave cannot be sanctioned just for askance; Petitioner’s Representation dated 09.06.2013 is neither bona fide nor true. That being the position, the
Respondent – Authorities asked him to go before the appropriate office wherein he had last worked and seek sanctioning of the leave. Learned AGA also notifies to the Court that the Petitioner without approaching his jurisdictional higher ups, had represented to the Chief Minister of the State, which is not a good development. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Petitioner that his client though made efforts to report for duty, the College at Kushalnagar did not accept his Duty Report and therefore, absence of the Petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized absence, is very difficult to countenance. In Service Jurisprudence, long absence without permission is treated as a major misconduct for which, punishment can be dismissal from service. If Duty Report was not accepted, Petitioner could have raised the said grievance in writing, however, that he did not do. On the contrary, in his Representation dated 09.06.2013, what he has stated is about the aged parents and there being none to look after them. No material is produced to vouch this assertion also. Learned AGA is right in contending that the Petitioner is not a bona fide employee and that he was trying to create false evidence to justify the long unauthorized absence.
Court; any grievance he could have redressal at the hands of his immediate superior officials. He did not do that. Directly, he interacted with the Chief Minister of the State, with no justification whatsoever. Employees ordinarily are not supposed to raise their grievance before the Ministers, much less the Chief Minister since, they are high functionaries of the Executive who have to devote time & energy to the larger public causes. If higher ups do not grant redressal, one can understand an employee complaining to the Ministers. An otherwise conduct is not a happy thing to happen.
In the above circumstances, this Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable to set aside the Tribunal order dismissing the petition regarding unauthorized absence.
Whether a long unauthorized absence without reporting to duty constitutes major misconduct warranting termination.
Whether the petitioner acted bona fide in seeking leave or raising grievances before the Chief Minister.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. L NAGANNA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION
THE TAHSILDAR KOLLEGAL TALUK
KRISHNA S DIXIT
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
