The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely action and compliance with appeal filing rules, as well as the application of the Principles of Audi Alteram Partem in cases of minor penalties.

JUDGMENT :

R DEVDAS, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the period for which he was prevented to work as a Village Accountant i.e., from 06.12.1976 to 04.07.1990, which was treated as Leave Without Allowance, is contrary to the Principles of law.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Village Accountant at Ponnasamudra Village Panchayat, Pavagada taluk was issued with a charge memo alleging that he collected a sum of Rs.33-24 on 11.10.1973 from one Adinarayana Setty towards land revenue in respect of Khatha No.65, but he failed to remit the amount to Government and misappropriated the same and that he unauthorizedly remained absent from duty with effect from 06.12.1976 till 04.07.1990. The petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.2094/1990 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 08.06.1990 directing the Department to take back the petitioner to duty and accordingly in the month of July,1990 the petitioner was taken for duty.

3. So far as the charge relating to misappropriation of amount is concerned, the Department had initiated a criminal case against the petitioner and the Criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner. As regards the charge of unauthorized absence for nearly 14 years, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 17.08.1991 imposed penalty of "Warning" and treated the period as Leave Without Allowance. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division on 17.03.2001. The Appellate Authority issued an endorsement to the petitioner on 14.02.2002 and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal should have been preferred within a period of three months in terms of Rule 20 of the CCA Rules.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in application No.8385/2003 challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner. The Tribunal, by order dated 19.08.2016 allowed the Application in part by quashing the endorsement dated 14.02.2002 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the grounds of appeal. Thereafter the petitioner herein also submitted a representation to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. The Appellate Authority i.e., Regional Commissioner, by order dated 26.07.2017 rejected the appeal holding that the petitioner had unauthorizedly remained absent from duty from 06.12.1976 to 04.07.1990 and that the petitioner had not discharged duties during the said period and hence there is no provision in Rules to count the said period as on duty.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 24.05.2018 rejected the application made by the petitioner herein. Therefore, being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

6. Sri.N.F. Amarad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Regional Commissioner and the Tribunal have erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner was indeed prevented from joining duty. In this regard, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K.Bharadwaj vs. Union of India and others, (2001) 9 SCC 180 to submit that even in case of minor penalty, the Principles of Audi Alteram Partem could not be dispensed with. In other words, it is contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not conduct enquiry and did not give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Therefore, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate Authority and Tribunal require to be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would support the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Regional Commissioner and the Tribunal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the writ papers.

9. On going through the writ papers, we find that though the cha