Chandrappa. Y Vs the Divisional Controller/Disciplinary Authority

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SE TASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WitnessP.NO.10476/2019 [L-KSRTC] DATED 07-03-2024 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1715-DB WA No. 1085 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶38

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant - workman impugning the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10476/2019.

¶39

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

¶40

The petitioner was working as a Diver-cum-Conductor in the respondent - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'). He remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of one year fifteen days from 14.12.2014 till 01.01.2016. On several previous occasions, the petitioner-workman had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty - precisely on nine occasions. The explanation offered by the petitioner-workman that his father was unwell as he was suffering from paralysis, was not believed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner had placed reliance on a

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1715-DB WA No. 1085 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

certificate dated 15.05.2015, issued by one H.S. Ramaswamy, Private Registered Medical Practitioner.

¶45

The learned Single Judge has comprehensively examined the fact, evidence and the law.

¶46

We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner's absence from 14.12.2014 to 01.01.2016 was not the first such absence. The petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty on nine previous occasions. The conduct of the petitioner would show that he was not interested in his job and in fact, he had abandoned his service.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference by this Court, and we hereby dismiss this writ appeal.

¶48