Dismissed

M R Vasudev v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/38947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Physical Education Teacher challenged the order treating his absence from 05.12.1999 to 23.03.2002 as leave without salary, claiming he was not given proper posting to a High School. The High Court held he never sought alternate or proper posting nor reported for duty, and upheld the authorities' order and the Tribunal's rejection of his application.

What the court decided

AI extract

M R Vasudev Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 38947 OF 2019 (S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M R VASUDEV S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, GOVT. PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, VARTHUR, R/O. C/O. B M JANARDHAN, 2^ND CROSS, GUNDAPPA SHED, GANDHI CIRCLE, VARTHUR, BENGALURU- 87.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADV. FOR SRI I R BIRADAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (HIGHER EDUCATION), M.S. BUIDLING, BENGLAURU- 560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, N R CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) SOUTH DISTRICT, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU- 560002.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL AND HEAD MASTER ASB GOVT. PU COLLEGE, ANEKAL,

¶20

BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-560003.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1268/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNX-B AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

Petitioner, a Physical Education Teacher belonging to Higher Education Department is before this Court questioning the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting Application No.1268/2014 wherein the petitioner had questioned order dated 23.10.2013 treating the period from 05.12.1999 to 23.03.2002 as unauthorized absent and treated the said period as leave without salary.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶31

Heard the learned counsel Sri.G.G.Chagashetti

¶32

for Sri.I.R.Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶33

The petitioner who was working as Physical Education Teacher, Grade-II was kept under suspension on certain allegations of misconduct under order dated 19.07.1999. The petitioner was before this Court challenging the said order of suspension. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by making representation. On the representation of the petitioner, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was posted to work at Government Higher Primary School, Kambalipura, Hoskote Taluk under order dated 04.12.1999. It is submitted that the said order of posting was to Primary School and as the petitioner is appointed to work as Physical Education Teacher, Grade-II in the High

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶35

School, the petitioner did not report to duty at the place of posting. Thereafter, he approached the Tribunal in Application No.3302/2001 questioning the order of posting dated 04.12.1999 and also seeking salary for the period during which he was not given proper posting. The Tribunal allowed the application by its order dated 15.02.2002 and held that the applicant is eligible to treat the entire period as on duty with all consequential monetary benefits. The said order of the Tribunal was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22645/2002. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set

¶36

aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to re-hear the parties and thereafter proceed to pass a detailed order with regard to entitlement of salary for the period in question.

¶37

The Tribunal thereafter by order dated 23.08.2006 directed the Government to consider the period of suspension and also the period of unauthorized absence of the applicant in accordance with Rules 100 and

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶39

106-A of KCSRs respectively, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. While passing the said order, the Tribunal also observed that since there was no order staying the order of posting to Kambalipura and the petitioner was not prevented from reporting duty before the BEO or competent authority, still he absented from the duty. Thereafter, the authorities under O.M. dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure-A5), treated the period between 19.07.1999 to 04.12.1999 as on duty and the period from 05.12.1999 to 23.03.2002 as leave without pay under Rule 106-A of KCSRs.

¶40

The said order was challenged before the Tribunal in Application No.2360/2009. The Tribunal by order dated 24.09.2012, set aside the O.M., dated 29.07.2008 with liberty to the Government to pass fresh orders after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as directed by the Tribunal earlier. In pursuance to the said order, petitioner was issued with notice and the petitioner also submitted his reply. Taking

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶42

note of the reply, impugned order dated 23.10.2013 is passed treating the period from 19.07.1999, the date of suspension till he was given posting on 04.12.1999 as ‘on duty’ and treating the period from 05.12.1999 till the petitioner reported to duty on 23.03.2002 as ‘unauthorized absent’ and treated the period as ‘leave without allowance’

¶43

under Rule 106-A of KCSRs. The said order was the subject matter of Application No.1268/2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the said application of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.G.G.Chagashetti would contend that the action of the authorities in treating the period as ‘leave without salary’ is wholly unreasonable since the petitioner was not given proper posting till 23.03.2002. Initially, he was given posting under Order dated 04.12.1999 to Primary School, but the petitioner ought to have been posted to High School or PreUniversity College, since his appointment is to High School. As there was no proper posting, the petitioner had

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶46

no occasion to report to duty. Thus, he submits that period from 05.12.1999 to 23.03.2002 ought to have been treated as ‘on duty’ and the petitioner ought to have been paid salary for the said period. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further invites attention of this Court to paragraph 27 of the Tribunal’s order dated 23.08.2006 in Application No.3302/2001. He submits that there was no impediment for the petitioner to seek alternate posting when the petitioner was given posting to a Primary School under Order dated 04.12.1999. Further, he submits that the petitioner has not sought any proper posting and took his own time to approach the Tribunal. Therefore, the authorities are justified in treating the said period as ‘leave without salary’. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶50

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the authorities as well as the Tribunal for the following reasons:

¶51

Admittedly, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 19.07.1999 and in pursuance to representation of the petitioner, order of suspension was revoked by order dated 04.12.1999 posting the petitioner to Higher Primary School, Kambalipura, Hoskote Taluk. It is seen that, the petitioner could not have been posted to Primary School and he ought to have been provided posting to High School or Pre-University College as Physical Education Teacher, Grade-II. But, the petitioner never sought alternate posting or sought proper posting and he also never reported to duty before the BEO or competent authority. The petitioner took his own time to approach the Tribunal. When the petitioner has remained absent without seeking proper posting and when the

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37514-DB WP No. 38947 of 2019

¶53

petitioner absented himself from duty, he would not be entitled for treating the said period as ‘on duty’. The petitioner reported to duty only on 23.03.2002. Therefore, when the petitioner has not sought any posting or worked during that period, the authorities have rightly treated the said period as ‘leave without salary’. Moreover, the authorities have rightly treated the period of suspension as ‘on duty’ since no enquiry is conducted.

¶54

Thus, we do not find any error in the order passed by the authorities as well as the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶55

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶57

NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

M R Vasudev v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M R Vasudev v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Basf India Limited Vs L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited

Manyatha Vs Shri H.P.Umesh

Smt Susheelamma Vs Smt Chennamma

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M Shambulinga Swamy

Sri. Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Srinivas v