IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S. Indiresh, J.
C P Bheemaih – Appellant
Versus
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32602 of 2013 (S-DIS)
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Disciplinary Action - Unauthorized Absence - The court upheld the disciplinary action initiated by the respondent-authorities against the petitioner for unauthorized absence, finding that the petitioner remained absent for 1220 days despite receiving notices and failing to participate in the proceedings. The court concluded that the respondent-authorities had complied with the principles of natural justice and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Grade-I Mechanic, was dismissed from service by the respondent-authorities due to unauthorized absence for 1220 days. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking declaration that the disciplinary action was contrary to law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner remained absent for 1220 days despite receiving notices and not participating in the proceedings. It concluded that the respondent-authorities had complied with the principles of natural justice and upheld the disciplinary action.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, Compliance with principles of natural justice, Validity of disciplinary action
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent-authorities had followed the principles of natural justice in issuing notices and conducting the disciplinary proceedings. It also emphasized that the petitioner's failure to participate in the proceedings despite receiving notices amounted to misconduct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the disciplinary action initiated by the respondent-authorities against the petitioner for unauthorized absence.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner is assailing order dtd. 21/5/2011 (Annexure-K) and order dtd. 13/2/2011 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2 and 3 respectively interalia, sought for declaration that the disciplinary action initiated by the respondents is contrary to law.
2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner while working as Grade-I Mechanic with the respondent-authorities, on the ground of unauthorized absence, the respondentauthorities initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted and despite notice received by the petitioner, he remained absent and therefore, Disciplinary Authority passed order dtd. 21/5/2011 (Annexure-K) dismissing the petitioner from the service on the ground that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of 1220 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority by order dtd. 13/12/2011, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard B.S. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Medini Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Harikrishna S.Holla, for respondent No.1.
4. Sri B.S. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was not able to get opportunity to represent before the Enquiry Officer as he has not received the notice. He further contended that, he has informed Junior Engineer of the office to forward the leave letters and medical certificates to the Departmental Authority however, the same was not done by the said Junior Engineer and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Smt Medini Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities and submitted that despite notice has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings and thereafter, the notice through paper publication was taken and therefore, she contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities requires to be affirmed.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioner was working with the respondent-authorities and he remained absent for a period of 1220 days. On careful examination of the writ papers would further indicate that, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners seeking explanation and same was served to the petitioner despite the same, the petitioner did not file his reply, nor appeared before the Enquiry Officer. I have carefully perused the original records, submitted by the respondent-authorities and same would indicate that the notice sent by the respondent-authorities were served on the petitioner herein. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on records, the petitioner has remained absent for 1220 days and in this regard, the respondent-authorities have taken notice through paper publication in Prajavani and Andolana Daily news papers, and despite the same, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Being a responsible officer of the respondent-Corporation, the action of the petitioner not intimating the respondentCorporation for a period of 1220 days despite having received notices amounts to misconduct and therefore, I am of the view that, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent-Corporation.
7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has sent leave letters though the Junior Engineer, however, the said defense was not taken while filing appeal before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the submission made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle in law that this court is having limited power of
Compliance with principles of natural justice and misconduct due to unauthorized absence
Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.
Unauthorized absence for a long period constitutes gross misconduct, and the principle of no work, no pay applies in cases of dismissal.
Habitual unauthorised absence, failure to comply with orders, and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary actions
The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, requiring substantiation of claims regarding illness with adequate evidence.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for the accused to present their case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.