Dakshayanamma Vs the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority

The deceased Sri.G.E.Ravikumar was working as a Driver Cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He came under disciplinary proceedings for an act of misconduct, unauthorised absence from 26.12.2015 to 22.03.2016, and an Article of Charge was issued to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted findings holding

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:31420 WP No. 18493 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

that the charges are proved, and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.05.2017.

¶36

Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute before the Labor Court in I.D.A.No.11/2017. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 30.10.2018 dismissed the claim application. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶37

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶38

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

¶39

The facts are adequately stated and do not need repetition. It is enough to note that the workman faced disciplinary proceedings and was punished with dismissal from service. The main issue concerns unauthorized absence. The

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:31420 WP No. 18493 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

charge against the workman was that he was absent without permission from duty from 26.12.2015 to 22.03.2016.

¶44

It is the specific contention of the Corporation that

¶45

no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds.

¶46

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 justifying 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.

¶47

This Court finds that although the workman sought to justify his absence by asserting ill health, however, he did

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:31420 WP No. 18493 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

not entered into the witness box and gave evidence before the

¶52

Labor Court.

¶53

It is pertinent to note that upon a proper appreciation of the material on record, the Labor Court rightly dismissed the claim of the workman. In my view, the findings of the Labor Court are just and proper.

¶54

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶55

Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged.

¶56

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶57

SS/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Dakshayanamma v. the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakshayanamma v. the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar

B M Gurappa Vs B G Santosh Kumar

Mr. Madiraju Babu Vs Sir.M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

B S Indira Bai Vs the Managing Director

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G D Arun Vs State Bank of India