Dismissed¶99

N Rajkumar v. the Member Secretary

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025WP/11902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised absence from transferred post; refusal/non-reporting after transfer order 29.07.1998; SCPC Gorantla; departmental enquiry fairness; removal from service w.e.f. 14.03.2000; CGIT award 19.06.2020 C.R.No.02/2005; judicial review scope under Article 226/227 - writ court not an appellate forum; Rule 19 CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 original medical certificate burden; Rule 7 CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 leave not a right; Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 insubordination; delay in penalty order not fatal; discipline in government service; Central Silk Board driver; writ petition dismissed, award upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned award dated 19.06.2020 of the CGIT stands upheld. ¶99

N Rajkumar Vs the Member Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned award dated 19.06.2020 of the CGIT stands upheld.

¶99

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the management of Central Silk Board, Bangalore in terminating the services of Sh. N Rajakumar, Ex-Driver, w.e.f. 14.03.2000 was legal and justified, and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled (the referred industrial dispute). +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner's contentions fail because he did not produce the original medical certificate even before the Enquiry Officer; given Rule 19 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the responsibility and burden lay on the petitioner to produce it, and his reply to the Enquiry Officer's query on joining the transferred place was evasive.

¶91

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot go into the merits of the matter.

¶87

Key takeaways

Review through the 'small aperture' is confined to whether the CGIT order is sustainable in law, with due application of mind and due consideration of evidence; the mandate before the CGIT was only to see whether the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per rules, in compliance with natural justice, and whether the procedure and result were fair and commensurate with the gravity of the charge proved.ratio¶87
The allegation that the order of removal from service was passed after 2 years of issuance of the charge sheet would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner; the delay is not fatal to the enquiry.ratio¶91

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga JJ.; order per Jayant Banerji J.), 12.09.2025, dismisses a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari against the award dated 19.06.2020 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore in C.R.No.02/2005, whereby the reference concerning termination of N. Rajkumar, ex-driver of Central Silk Board, w.e.f. 14.03.2000 (for unauthorised absence from his transferred posting at SCPC, Gorantla after transfer order dated 29.07.1998) was rejected. Held: (i) under Article 226/227 the writ court does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot go into merits; scrutiny is confined to whether the CGIT order is sustainable in law, with due application of mind and due consideration of evidence; (ii) the CGIT's mandate was only to test whether the departmental enquiry complied with rules and natural justice and whether the procedure and result were fair and commensurate with the gravity of the charge; (iii) the petitioner's failure to produce the original medical certificate, despite the responsibility and burden cast on him by Rule 19 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and his evasive reply to the Enquiry Officer, defeated his contentions; (iv) the contention that the removal order dated 14.03.2000 came two years after the charge sheet does not inure to the petitioner's benefit; (v) discipline in government service must be enforced at all times, as condonation of negligent attitudes degrades discipline. Petition dismissed; no relief granted.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 11902 OF 2021 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N. RAJKUMAR S/O T. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.26, 10TH CROSS MANJUNATHNAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GIRISHA N.R, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MEMBER SECRETARY CENTRAL SILK BOARD CSB COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, MADIWALA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI NARASIMHA SWAMY N.S, ADV.)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.R.No.2/2005 PENDING ON THE FILED OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTIONS OF APPROPRIATE NATURE QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-H AWARD DATED 19.06.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE C.R.No-2/2005, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

This petition has been filed seeking to quash an award dated 19.06.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore¹ in C.R.No.02/2005 between Sri.N. Rajkumar

¶26

V. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board . The

¶27

industrial dispute that was referred for adjudication:

¶28

"Whether the action of the management of Central Silk Board, Bangalore in terminating the services of Sh.N Rajakumar, Ex.Driver w.e.f. 14.03.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

¶29

3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver, with

¶30

the respondent with effect from 29.05.1990. He was transferred to Seed Cocoon Procurement Centre, NSSP,

¶31

1 CGIT

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CSB, Gorantla, Andhra Pradesh, by means of an order dated 29.07.1998, he could not report to duty due to family and personal problems. He pleaded for a transfer to Bangalore. The allegation was that without considering his representation the respondent issued show cause notice followed by a charge sheet which culminated in the Departmental Enquiry.

¶35

The workmen assailed before the CGIT, the procedure for enquiry adopted by the enquiry officer by not affording him opportunity to contest the charges. It was stated that Enquiry Report is based on surmises and conjuncture without considering the defence, and the Disciplinary Authority mechanically accepted the Enquiry Report and imposed the maximum penalty of removal from service. Victimization and unfair labour practice were alleged. It was stated that after his removal he is unemployed and finding it hard to maintain himself and his family.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The respondent justified the action taken

¶39

against the petitioner and denied all the allegations levelled in the claim statement in respect of the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Report and the punishment order.

¶40

On perusal of the record of this petition, it appears that charge sheet dated 25.05.1999 was served on the petitioner which was accompanied by an imputation

¶41

of misconduct, the allegation being to the effect that:

¶42

"he was transferred from Silk Worm Seed Production Centre, Bangalore vide order dated 29.07.1998 of Director, National Silkworm Speed Project, Bangalore but he did not report to duty at the transferred place, after his relief at SSPC Bangalore on 31.07.1998 and remained absent unatuhorizedly w.e.f. 01.08.1998 causing serious dislocation in office work at SCPC, Gorantla. He showed utter insubordination to administrative orders; the headquarters had to make alternative arrangements for transportation at SCPC Gorantla, by deploying drivers from Basic Seed Form, Parigi. The above misconduct contravenes Rule 3(1) (ii) and (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

¶43

7. Copies of all the records relied upon by the

¶44

management was supplied to the workmen for his perusal being PE-1 to PE-18. This was done prior to the effective

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

enquiry hearing held on 01.11.1999. None of those documents were disputed by the petitioner and it was submitted from his side that he did not absent himself from duty unauthorisedly. His absence was on account of health grounds and he had requested for sanction of leave and had submitted a certificate issued by a Civil Surgeon of the Government Hospital.

¶48

The Presenting Officer of the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not produced the original medical certificate for his absence, as per the mandate of Rule No.19, of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

¶49

The submission of the petitioner was that though he did not dispute that his application was not in accordance with Rule No.19, of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, his submission was that if the office had called upon him to produce the original medical certificate, the same would have been submitted.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Presenting Officer brought on record, with the permission of the Enquiry Officer, documents marked as PE-19 to PE-21, which were three previous applications of the petitioner of 25.09.1995, 06.05.1996 and 05.08.1996, which were applications for sanction of commuted leave to establish that the petitioner was in the habit of availing leave by submitting proper applications and medical certificates in original.

¶53

The petitioner maintained that his absence was

¶54

not unauthorised and he kept the office informed about his ill health, so also his inability to attend the office. Production of the medical certificate and other matter should have been taken up by the office by issuing necessary direction to him from time to time. The petitioner's stand was that since, no information regarding sanction of leave on his earlier application was received, he could not send any leave application as the office had already issued show cause notice to him on 12.04.1999.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The CGIT noted a question placed by the

¶59

Enquiry Officer to the petitioner that whether the petitioner was ready even now to report for duty at SCPC, Gorantla. The answer of the petitioner was:

¶60

"I have explained my position in my representation dated 01.08.1998 which has not been considered sympathetically. It is not possible to report at Gorantla on account of health reasons and I have to look after my father who is aged. I request again that my case may be considered sympathetically."

¶61

Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded with the understanding that the petitioner would submit his written brief within 15 days of receipt of copy of the management brief. Though the written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer and marked to the petitioner, he did not submit his counter reply. The Enquiry Officer therefore, found on the basis of undisputed documents and oral submissions that as per Rule 7 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, leave cannot be claimed as of right. The petitioner did not submit original medical certificate along with his leave application, while applying for leave knowing that his

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

application should be accompanied by original medical certificate.

¶65

It was further observed that despite being advised on several occasions by the office to report for duty at his new place of posting through repeated Telegrams/Memorandum/Show Cause Notice, he did not care to follow the administrative instructions of the office and used to send telegrams/letters without any medical certificate. No medical certificate was submitted by the petitioner after 11.02.1999. It was noted that though by means of exhibits PE-4 (a) and (b) and PE-13, he intimated the office that he would report for duty at SCPC, Gorantla after recovery from his ill health but he did not report, which was in utter insubordination to office orders/instructions. The charges were accordingly proved and it was observed that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening Rule 3(1) (ii) and (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1964.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

The CGIT noted that the Disciplinary Authority

¶70

by a considered order upheld the enquiry report by recording that:

¶71

i) Assistant Director, SCPC, Gorantla and NSSP Directorate directed him several times to report at his new place of posting - and informed about nonconsideration of his request for leave - directed to report for duty forthwith and he did not adhere to the instructions / orders of his superiors which shows his absolute disobedience to his administrative orders.

¶72

ii) His duty confines to limited area and not for exposure to dust.

¶73

iii) He had submitted leave application after a lapse of 10 months from August 1998 and thereafter he did not submit any leave application.... The act amounts to unauthorized absence from duty.

¶74

He was transferred to SCPC, Gorantla, in public interest to meet the critical situation of transportation and supply of seed cocoons to all major SSPCs of southern states - his staying away from duty caused severe inconvenience and NSSP Directorate was forced for alternate arrangements of deployment of Drivers from other units.

¶75

Thus, agreeing with the Report of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the punishment order.

¶76

Thus, the CGIT found that the enquiry finding is based on uncontroverted records and also the demeanour

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

of the petitioner during the enquiry, since he was not agreeable to report to the transferred place even at that point of time. The CGIT noted that the petitioner made attempt to produce additional evidence by producing photostat copy of the so-called medical certificates, but observed that it is not an Appellate Court enjoying the jurisdiction to receive additional evidence. Neither the Enquiry Report nor the orders of the Disciplinary Authority were found to suffer from any legal flaws. It was found that the action taken against the petitioner for removal from service with effect from 14.03.2000 was legal and justified and the punishment order was commensurate with the misconduct proved. The reference was accordingly rejected.

¶80

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was genuinely ill and was suffering from breathing problems. At no point of time prior to this incident did the petitioner not report for duty whenever he was transferred. It is stated that the Enquiry

¶81

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Officer himself had noted that till August 1999, the leave certificates were produced. It has been urged that the charge sheet was issued in the year 1998, but the order imposing penalty was issued on 14.03.2000, after a period of 2 years. Therefore, the delay is fatal to the enquiry.

¶84

It is contended that similarly placed employees were accorded leave, but the petitioner was singled out by not giving leave. The veracity of the medical certificate could have been checked by seeking a report from the concerned doctor, which was not done in the instant case. Finally, it has been urged that punishment for removal from service is too harsh, and a lesser punishment ought to have been imposed against the petitioner while retaining him in service. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner did not join his place of posting, no serious administrative consequences followed. The act of the petitioner was bonafide only on account of his illness.

¶85

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

We have perused the records and have noted the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal. We cannot therefore, go into the merits of the matter. The small aperture through which the order of the CGIT has to be seen is whether the same is sustainable in the eyes of law, whether there is due application of mind and whether the evidence has been duly considered. The mandate before the CGIT, while considering the disciplinary proceeding that was sought to be challenged before it by means of the industrial dispute, was only to see whether the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per rules, and in compliance of the principles of natural justice and the procedure and the result thereof is, respectively, fair and commensurate with the gravity of the charge proved. The CGIT has elaborately considered the evidence on record and has noted the proceedings

¶88

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:36258-DB WP No. 11902 of 2021

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

before the Enquiry Officer as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶91

The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would not be of any avail for him inasmuch as even before the Enquiry Officer he did not produce the concerned original medical certificate. When a specific query was posed by the Enquiry Officer that whether the petitioner would be willing to join the transferred place of posting, his reply was evasive. The allegation that the order of removal from service was passed after 2 years of issuance of the charge sheet, also, would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner. Given the mandate of Rule 19 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, it was the responsibility and burden on the petitioner to have produced the original medical certificate which he did not. Discipline in any organisation, particularly Government service is to be maintained and enforced at all times. Negligent and lackadaisical attitude of workmen, if condoned would lead to general degradation of discipline in the organization.

¶92