Dismissed¶58

Sri Penchalaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Service Law – Condonation of delay

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/5794/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.), order dated 06.11.2025, WP No. 5794 of 2024 (S-KSAT), NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB. Keywords: condonation of delay; sufficient cause; 385 days delay; unauthorised absence from service; dismissal from service dated 22.03.2017; Compounder; Ramanagara District Hospital; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal; Application No. 2627/2019; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; dismissal without inquiry; loss of service benefits 01.07.1981 to 01.08.2016; petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Unauthorised absence is a malice, and a person seeking condonation of delay must show cause that would be sufficient in law; the causes offered (ill parents, wife's hospitalisation in April 2017) did not suffice. ¶46

Sri Penchalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner made out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 385 days in approaching the Tribunal to challenge his dismissal from service dated 22.03.2017. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal did not err in holding that the delay was not sufficiently explained; the petitioner, who had abandoned his employment prioritising family business, approached the Tribunal almost two years after dismissal and four months after claiming knowledge of it, seeking resurrection of a career that has culminated.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Court is not persuaded by the contention that the dismissal having been made without an inquiry, and the consequent loss of benefit of service between 01.07.1981 and 01.08.2016 for post-service benefits, warrants a different consideration of the delay.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Condonation of delay - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2022 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No. 2627/2019, whereby the Tribunal refused to condone a delay of 385 days and dismissed the challenge to the petitioner's dismissal from service dated 22.03.2017 - Petitioner, a Compounder at Ramanagara District Hospital, remained unauthorisedly absent from service from 01.08.2016; notice was issued in a news daily calling upon him to report to duty before the dismissal order dated 22.03.2017 - Petitioner claimed he learnt of the dismissal only in December 2018 and approached the Tribunal on 12.04.2019 with medical certificates admittedly dated after the dismissal - Causes offered (aged and ill parents at Shivamogga, wife's hospitalisation in April 2017) held insufficient in law - Held: unauthorised absence is a malice and condonation requires cause sufficient in law; the Tribunal did not err in holding the delay unexplained, the petitioner having abandoned employment prioritising family business and now seeking resurrection of a culminated career - Contention that dismissal without inquiry and loss of service benefits from 01.07.1981 to 01.08.2016 warranted a different approach rejected - Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PENCHALAIAH 61 YEARS, S/O LATE N NARASIMHAIAH, D GROUP EMPLOYEE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PERMANENT R/O USHA NILAYA,

¶11

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶12

5^TH CROSS, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, GAYATRI BADAVANE, RAMAMURTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560016

¶13

(BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEP OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER

¶21

DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, LAKSHMIPUR, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560008.

¶22

THE MEDICAL OFFICER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA - 562159.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2022 IN APPLICATION No. 2627/2019.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶33

The petitioner, who was in service as a 'Compounder' attached to Ramnagara District Hospital, Ramanagara and is dismissed from service on 22.03.2017 has unsuccessfully called in question such decision in his application in No.2627/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal' ].

¶34

The petitioner, because his application before the Tribunal was belated, has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, on examination of the grounds set forth and the law on the sufficient cause that must be shown for condonation of delay, has opined that the petitioner has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay [ 385 days ] and consequently both the applications for condonation of delay and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the application as against the decision of dismissal dated 22.03.2017 are dismissed.

¶39

A concise statement of the facts are that

¶40

the petitioner, even according to his pleadings, ' had to leave for his native place in Shivamogga' in the year 2016 because his parents were aged and ill and he had to take care of his family business which was being run by his parents. The petitioner submits that his parents' health and family business in Shivamogga was so critical that it demanded more time and attention, and as such, he had to stay back for longer than the anticipated period. The petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent from service from 01.08.2016. The third respondent, acting on administrative instructions to take action against those who have remained unauthorisedly absent, has, according to the pleadings taken measures to locate the petitioner and have also issued notice in a News daily calling upon the petitioner to report to

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

duty to avoid consequences. It is after this process that the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 is issued.

¶45

The petitioner asserts that he reported to duty on some day in the month of December 2018 and that is when he learnt that he was dismissed from service. If the petitioner does states that he learnt about the decision to dismiss him from service in December 2018, he approaches the Tribunal on 12.04.2019, enclosing medical certificates which are undisputedly dated post the date of his dismissal.

¶46

The cause offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay, canvassing that such cause would be sufficient in law are that his parents were initially ill and in the month of April 2017, his wife had to be hospitalised. It remains beyond dispute that unauthorised absence would be a malice and if there is to be any condonation of delay, the person seeking condonation of delay must show cause that would be sufficient in law.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The petitioner's dismissal order is dated

¶51

22.03.2017, and the petitioner without disclosing as to when he reported to duty, except for stating that it is in the month of December 2018, has approached the Tribunal four months later, relying upon those documents which does not explain reasonably the failure to initiate action for a period of almost two years. This Court, therefore, does not find that the Tribunal has erred in opining that the delay is not sufficiently explained and in observing that the petitioner, who had abandoned his employment, prioritising family business, is now seeking resurrection of a career that has culminated.

¶52

This Court, is therefore, not persuaded by

¶53

the reasons canvassed by Smt Suma Kedilaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this Court must consider the question of delay in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without an inquiry and that consequent to

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

such dismissal, the petitioner stands to lose the benefit of service between 01.07.1981 and 01.08.2016 for the purposes of post service benefits.

¶58

As such, the petition stands rejected.

¶59

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶60