The Divisional Controller of Nekrtc, Vs S Siddramanna S/O S Sidappa

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OF NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.

¶11

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.S.BADAWADAGI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

S.SIDDRAMANNA S/O S.SIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O: THE PRESIDENT KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, CLUB ROAD, DEVI NAGAR, BELLARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5786 WP No. 76770 of 2013

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, counsel for the

¶23

petitioner, appeared in person.

¶24

An emergent notice was issued to the respondent on 25.09.2013. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶25

2. The short facts are these:

¶26

The respondent, S.Siddramanna, was working as an Artisan in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 01.08.2001 to 16.07.2002 without prior permission or sanction of leave. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. Articles of charge were issued and he submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record and the past conduct of the workman, imposed a minor punishment on 31.07.2006.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5786 WP No. 76770 of 2013

¶29

The respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, in I.D.No.135/2009. The Tribunal, vide award dated 11.04.2012, modified the minor punishment. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds, as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care.

¶31

The short point that arises for consideration is

¶32

whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference.

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct, i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of minor punishment.

¶34

The issue revolves around unauthorized absences. The corporation specifically contended that the respondent did not submit a leave application, and even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds. The workman attempted to contend

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5786 WP No. 76770 of 2013

¶37

that he had submitted a leave application to the depot manager. However, he had admitted the guilt in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal modified the order of minor punishment on the ground that the punishment order is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. This is incorrect.

¶38

An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5786 WP No. 76770 of 2013

¶41

As per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971, taking note of past conduct is a mandatory requirement. Hence, the Tribunal could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly.

¶42

Moreover, setting aside the order of minor penalty is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to set aside the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is absolute, and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal unless there is a perversity and victimization. In the present case, there is no perversity and victimization. Hence, setting aside the order of minor punishment is unsustainable in law. I may venture to say that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶43