Writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's decision upholding dismissal of a Group 'D' employee for prolonged unauthorised absence (1,087 days) despite claims of medical grounds. The court found no evidence of illness was produced before the enquiry authority and dismissed the petition.
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:10409-DB WP No. 7275 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 7275 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.M. VENUGOPAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT.MANJULA.R, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O LATE VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, MEDAHALLI, VEERGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 049. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMN) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN APPLICATION NO.4017/2019 AT ANNEXURE-D, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, in this writ petition, challenged the legality and validity of the order passed in A.No.4017/2019 dated 06.07.2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
The husband of the petitioner namely Sri.S.M Venugopal, appointed as Dalayat/Group ‘D’ Staff in Karnataka Parliamentary Affairs Department in the year 2001 and he was discharging his duties sincerely, diligently and effectively to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. Since from the year 2013, the petitioner’s husband was having neuro problem resulted in depression and as such, he became irregular in attending
duties and remained absent for duties from 19.06.2013 to 03.09.2014 i.e., for a period 442 days and subsequently reported for duty on 04.09.2014 and continued to work for sometime and again remained absent from 04.07.2016, as a result, the service of the husband of the petitioner has been repatriated to Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 18.05.2017. However, the petitioner once again failed to report for duty and remained absent till 10.04.2018 for a period of 645 days. Hence, the respondent initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the husband of the petitioner and issued show cause notice dated 22.10.2018. Since, the husband of the petitioner failed to reply the said show cause notice, the respondent vide order dated 14.12.2018 has appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the husband of the petitioner. Before the Enquiry Officer, the respondent examined 7 witnesses. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report to the concerned authority holding him for the guilty of the charges. In pursuance of the said report, the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same, he filed application before the Tribunal as stated supra . During
the pendency of the application, the husband of the petitioner i.e., original applicant expired, as such the petitioner being the wife continued in the proceedings before the KSAT. After assessment of the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the parties so also on perusal of the documents placed before it, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. The challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
Mukkanappa S.B for petitioner so also learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent.
only bona fide one i.e., on the health ground, as he was suffering from severe neuro problem and depression. In such circumstance, the dismissal order passed by the respondent amounts to grave mis-justice to the husband of the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
rightly dismissed the husband of the petitioner from the service and there is no error committed by the Tribunal by dismissing the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
"Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in A.No.4017/2019 is suffers from perversity and call for interference by this Court?"
repatriated him to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 18.05.2017. However, there also, he remained absent for a period of 645 days, hence a departmental enquiry was conducted. In the said departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined 7 witnesses so also got marked relevant documents. On careful perusal of the evidence of those witnesses, all those witnesses have categorically deposed before the Enquiring Authority that, the husband of the petitioner was remained absent unauthorizedly. Accordingly, the Enquiring Officer, after considering all those evidence, passed an order by imposing the penalty of dismissal against the husband of the petitioner.
emphatically submits that the absence of the husband of the petitioner was only due to medical reason and not intentional one, but the husband of the petitioner failed to produce such documents before the Enquiring Authority. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly passed an order by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner by holding that, the dismissal of the husband of the petitioner from service by the respondent is reasonable, proper
and proportionate. In that view of the matter, we answer the point raised above in the negative and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the application upholding the employee's dismissal for unauthorised absence suffers from perversity and calls for interference?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.M. Venugopal (since deceased, by LRs Manjula.R)
State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
K.SOMASHEKAR
RAJESH RAI K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
