P. B.Bhajanthri Vs Union of India

P.B.BHAJANTHRI, S/O. BHEEMAPPA BHAJANTHRI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, ’ANURADHA NILAYA’, 6^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, NEAR OMSHAKTI ARCH, OM SHAKTI LAYOUT, GARVEBAVI PALYA, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA A.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶18

CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, NORTH KARNATAKA REGIONAL, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, N.K. REGION, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶23

SUPERINTENDE OF POST OFFICES, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581 110.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. FOR R1-R4, ASG-SERVED)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2023 PASSED BY THE CAT IN OA/170/00103/2022, ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW OA/170/00103/2022 OF THE PETITIONER GRANTING HIS PRAYERS AND EXTEND THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶29

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)

¶35

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

¶36

of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in Original Application No.170/00103/2022. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming the orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities removing the petitioner from service for unauthorized absence.

¶37

The facts essential for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent Department of Posts as a Group ‘D’ Packer on 20.05.1992. While working as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Haveri Head Post Office, the petitioner absented himself from duty without any prior permission or leave application from

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

01.12.2014 onwards. Consequently, disciplinary

¶41

proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him by framing an article of charge for unauthorized absence via a memorandum dated 17.09.2015.

¶42

In the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer conducted preliminary hearings. The petitioner actively participated in the inquiry on 22.08.2016 and voluntarily admitted the charge of unauthorized absence without any demur or protest. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge as proved. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, but he chose not to submit any representation against it. The Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4), matching the gravity of the extended misconduct, passed an order dated 20.12.2016 removing the petitioner from service.

¶43

The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner

¶44

was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

(Respondent No. 3) through a detailed order dated 27.11.2019. A subsequent revision petition submitted before the Revisional Authority (Respondent No. 2) was also rejected on 27.01.2022 after granting the petitioner the benefit of a personal hearing. Aggrieved by the concurrent dismissal across all administrative layers, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, which found no merit in his application and rejected the same, prompting the invocation of our supervisory writ jurisdiction.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶49

has forcefully raised two primary lines of challenge against the orders below:

¶50

(i) Competency and Jurisdiction: It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were invalidly initiated by an incompetent authority, namely the Postmaster Grade-III, whereas the petitioner was originally appointed by the Assistant Director-I, Office of the Postmaster General,

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

North Karnataka Region, Dharwad. It is argued that an authority subordinate to the appointing authority cannot set the disciplinary machinery in motion under Rule 14 of the Rules.

¶54

(ii) Absence of Finding on Willfulness: Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another (2012) 3 SCC 178 , the learned counsel submits that unauthorized absence does not automatically equate to misconduct unless it is proved to be willful. It is urged that the petitioner was forced to remain absent due to his sudden ill-health and the external interference of bad elements, making his absence non-willful, which was completely unappreciated by the authorities and the Tribunal.

¶55

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities justifies the final action, pointing out that the Postmaster Grade-III merely initiated the inquiry and framed the charges. The case file was

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

subsequently forwarded to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Division, who is a PSS Group ‘B’ Officer equal in rank to the appointing authority, to pass the final order of penalty following proper administrative codes. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual absentee who has faced similar actions in five distinct spells during his career. As his explanation of illness and external political pressure was found to be entirely unsubstantiated by medical proof or internal branch records, his absence was explicitly and correctly construed as willful.

¶59

After having carefully evaluated the competitive

¶60

submissions, evaluated the rules on the subject, and scrutinized the documents on record.

¶61

Regarding the Issue of Competence the petitioner’s contention that the Postmaster Grade-III lacked the competence to issue the charge memorandum is fundamentally answered by the statutory frameworks

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

governing the Department of Posts. Per the Gazette of

¶65

India Notification dated 15.09.1990, Postmasters GradeIII exercise the administrative and disciplinary powers corresponding to the Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I) General Line cadre from which the post was carved. Under these allocations, such an authority is fully empowered to initiate disciplinary action and frame articles of charge under Rule 14 of the Rules.

¶66

Moreover, the record reveals that the

¶67

Postmaster Grade-III did not pass the final order of penalty. Recognizing that the major penalty of removal from service fell beyond his explicit final powers, he scrupulously forwarded the entire inquiry record and findings to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Division, in perfect compliance with the mandatory requirements of Note under Rule 43 and Rule 21(a) of the Postal Manual Volume III. The final order of penalty dated 20.12.2016 was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri, who is a PSS Group ‘B’ Officer equivalent

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

in rank to the appointing authority. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that even where a lower authority initiates an inquiry, the final order is valid if it is passed by a competent removing authority. Therefore, the challenge on the grounds of competence fails.

¶71

Regarding willfulness and the application of

¶72

Krushnakant B. Parmar supra , the petitioner relies heavily on the proposition that unauthorized absence must be proved to be willful to constitute a blemish of misconduct. However, the factual matrix of the instant case completely distinguishes it from the ratio laid down in Krushnakant B. Parmar supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case explicitly observed that an employee cannot be held guilty of a failure of devotion to duty if the absence is caused by compelling circumstances beyond their control, such as sudden, serious illness, accident, or hospitalization.

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

In the present matter, the petitioner remained absent for an extended block of more than two years, barring a brief appearance for a fortnight in December 2015. He did not submit any formal leave applications, did not seek prior permission, and completely ignored a series

¶76

of direct notices issued by the Postmaster, Haveri, directing him to report back immediately. To claim protection under the Krushnakant framework, an employee must discharge the primary burden of showing that their absence was forced by compelling circumstances by presenting substantial evidence. The petitioner has placed absolutely no medical certificates, hospital records, or treatment slips to corroborate his claim of disabling illness.

¶77

Similarly, his subsequent claim before the Revisional Authority that local bad elements and politicians interfered with his work and stole mail bags was examined against the operational reports of the Haveri Division, which documented zero loss of mail bags during the

¶78

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

relevant period. In the absence of a shred of believable evidence explaining a multi-year absence, the conclusion of the respondent authorities and the Tribunal that the petitioner’s unauthorized abandonment of his post was entirely willful cannot be faulted.

¶81

Regarding proportionality of the Punishment the petitioner’s past history indicates that he is a habitual absentee, having accumulated thousands of days of unauthorized leave across five separate spells, which were earlier treated as dies-non along with an award of Censure. Going on prolonged unauthorized leave disrupts the public utility framework of the postal system and amounts to a clear breakdown of absolute devotion to duty. As held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008) 8 SCC 469 , long unauthorized absences cannot be casually condoned, and a major penalty like removal from service is entirely legal depending upon the period of absence and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation.

¶82

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:26249-DB WP No. 9749 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

The scope of judicial review under Article

¶85

226/227 against the orders of administrative tribunals is narrowly confined to checking for flagrant procedural impropriety, a breakdown of natural justice, or a punishment so shockingly disproportionate that it offends the conscience of the court, as recognized in V. Ramana

¶86

v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (2005) 7 SCC 338 . None of these vitiating elements exist here. The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to participate, admitted his guilt at the preliminary stage, and failed to submit any objections to the inquiry findings. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is sound, balanced, and fully aligned with settled legal tenets.

¶87