Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JYOTI M.
Divisional Controller, BMTC, Bengaluru – Appellant
Versus
Kumar H.I. S/o Iyanna – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary process for unauthorized absence (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties present their arguments (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issue of unauthorized absence highlighted (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. misconduct due to unauthorized absence and burden of proof (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. fairness of disciplinary inquiry upheld (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. labour court's award quashed and writ petition allowed (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
1. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Kantharaj V, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.
2. The short facts are as follows:
The respondent was a driver in the establishment of the corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the duty from 18.09.2013 onwards without prior permission or grant of leave. Hence, the Traffic Inspector informed the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager submitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a call notice. Consequently, Articles of Charge were issued. The respondent did not submit his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer issued notice, and the respondent presented himself for preliminary inquiry. Since the
The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, requiring substantiation of claims regarding illness with adequate evidence.
An employee's unauthorised absence without sufficient evidence of illness can justify dismissal, and the absence of a formal inquiry does not establish grounds for overturning the decision if the fac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
