Quashed

C. Kumaravelu v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/56776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged CAT's dismissal of his OA holding his prolonged absence wilful and upholding a penalty order. The High Court found the Tribunal had not considered that major penalties on a deemed-deputation employee could only be imposed by the Central Government, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the OA for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order dated 29.08.2018 in OA No.170/00286/2017 set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh hearing.

C. Kumaravelu Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 56776 OF 2018 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

C.KUMARAVELU, S/O. LATE B.S.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.52/1 (OUT HOUSE), 4^TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. A.R. HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

UNION OF INDIA, BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM SERVICES, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRASAR BHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶19

COPERNICUS MAG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRASAR BHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN, DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, COPERNICUS MAG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H., DSGI FOR SRI. K.MANIK PRABHU, CGSC FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD29.8.2018 PASSED BY THE CAT IN OA/170/00286/2017 ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶29

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench ('the Tribunal' for short) in OA No.170/00286/2017, whereby the Tribunal has

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶31

dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner

¶32

herein by stating in paragraph No.2 as under:

¶33

“2. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.R. Holla submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2106/2012 vide order dated 15.02.2012 held that there must be specific evidence of wilful absence. We most humbly accept the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court but then in the circumstances of this case how can anybody attribute wilfulness to the absence. It may be noted that absence is admitted. A sort of alibi is produced by the applicant when he says that he was unwell. We have no knowledge as to why and when and how during the interregnum of about 4 years the applicant was absent. Only the applicant can furnish the details which may lead the concerned authority to determine whether his absence was wilful or not. At this point of time Shri A.R. Holla seeks to correct us by saying that in 2013 we had passed an order for his representation to be considered. That interregnum even will not better the case of the applicant for the very simple reason that that absence seems to be continuous and without any break. For an illness of gastritis even if the applicant is to be treated it will not take these many years of time unless the applicant succumbs in the meanwhile. We therefore asked the learned counsel

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶35

for the applicant to provide us the details of the medical reimbursement claimed by the applicant had it been so that he was under medication during this period. He could not produce any such documentation. Therefore if the absence is without any apparent reason which can be justifiable it has to be held that the absence can only be wilful as the applicant knew that he was being absent and aware of the consequences of absence. Therefore there is no merit. At this point of time Shri A.R. Holla presses us to look into the second chargesheet also which we consider to be irrelevant. It says that one Minister of the Union had pressurized the respondents into passing an order. Whether he had pressurized the department or not it is of no relevance now as the applicant’s absence is admitted. He had produced one justification for his absence which, after examining the records and examining the Medical Board decision, we find that is not justified at all. Therefore we hold and declare that the absence of the applicant was deliberate and wilful and therefore the order passed by the respondents do not suffer any lacunae. The OA is therefore without any merit.”

¶36

The submission of Sri. A.R.Holla, learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner is two-fold. According to him, the impugned action was a taken by the respondents pursuant

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶39

to a charge sheet issued to the petitioner for absence. The justification given by the petitioner is that, as his mother was unwell, he was attending to her and as such, the absence cannot be treated as willful. In fact it is his submission that no charge was framed in the charge sheet alleging that the petitioner was willfully absent. The second submission is, the petitioner being an employee of the Government of India (GOI), though on deemed deputation with the Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India, the Authority under the GOI and not the Chief Executive Officer of Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India (Autonomous Body) who could have passed the order of penalty.

¶40

Sri. Holla submits that despite an averment in that

¶41

regard, the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect. In other words, it is his submission that if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then the penalty order is liable to be set aside.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶43

Though Sri. Shanthi Bhushan.H, learned DSGI would support the order passed by the Tribunal, but we are of the considered view that the issue(s) raised by Sri. Holla is appealing. In fact we find, the second issue has not been dealt with by the Tribunal; Sri. Holla has relied upon Annexure-D at page No.110 which interalia states, "...... Provided that the power to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service shall be exercised by the Central Government ".

¶44

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 in OA No.170/002886/2017 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal by reviving the OA to its original number with a direction to the Tribunal to re-hear the parties and decide the OA afresh. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be canvassed before the Tribunal.

¶45

With the above, the petition is disposed of .

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:36198-DB WP No. 56776 of 2018

¶48

Liberty is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to

¶49

make a request to the Tribunal for early disposal of OA.

¶50

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

C. Kumaravelu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Kumaravelu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dayavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Subramani Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Centre Fore Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre for Software Technology) Vs Mrs. Ragini Bhartari

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Mangaluru City Corporation

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Sanjay Babu N.C. Vs the State of Karnataka