Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt H C Vijaya Kumari vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2023

Author: G.Narendar

Bench: G.Narendar

                                             -1-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB
                                                       WP No. 26106 of 2022




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                       PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
                                             AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 26106 OF 2022 (S-CAT)
             BETWEEN:

             1.    SMT H C VIJAYA KUMARI
                   W/O SRI M DEVENDRA
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                   ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
                   MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
                   BROADCASTING (GOI)
                   (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY
                   RETIREMENT)
                   RESIDING AT NO.1201, 3RD CROSS
                   1ST BLOCK, HAL, 3RD STAGE
                   BENGALURU-560075.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. RAVI S K., ADVOCATE)

             AND:
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI S   1.    UNION OF INDIA
Location:          REP BY THE SECRETARY
HIGH
COURT OF           MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
KARNATAKA
                   A WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN
                   NEW DELHI-110001.

             2.    UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                   REP BY ITS SECRETARY
                   DHOLPUR HOUSE
                   SHAHJAHAN ROAD
                   NEW DELHI-110069.

             3.    DIRECTOR GENERAL
                   PRASAR BHARATI
                   NEWS SERVICE DIVISION
                                   -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB
                                             WP No. 26106 of 2022




          ALL INDIA RADIO
          AKASHAVANI BHAVAN
          NEW DELHI-110001

4.        DIRECTOR GENERAL
          PUBLICATION DIVISION
          MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
          BROADCASTING, SOOCHANA BHAVAN
          CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD
          NEW DELHI-110003.

5.        THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER
          MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
          BROADCASTING
          SOOCHANA BHAVAN
          CGO COMPLEX
          LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., CGC FOR R1, R3, R4 AND R5)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/03/2020
PASSED IN OA NO.170/1082/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER
DATED 09/09/2022 IN R.A.NO.170/51/2020 AT ANNEXURE-B BOTH
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGLAURU AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                ORDER

Heard Sri Ravi S.K., learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Jayakar Shetty H. learned CGC for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Records reveal that the Petitioner upon transfer as Assistant Director and on being -3- NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB WP No. 26106 of 2022 posted to New Delhi, reported to her post and thereafter applied for leave and proceeded to remain out of office for nearly two years. The records also reveal that subsequently, the said absence came to be regularized and leave came to be sanctioned for the said period. Even thereafter, it appears that the Petitioner has absented herself from duty i.e., from 1.1.2015 to 16.11.2015 and thereafter reported to duty on 17.11.2015 and continued discharging of duties for a couple of weeks and thereafter again absented herself. The case of the Petitioner is that the said period cannot be treated as unauthorized absence as the Petitioner had submitted several representations requesting that she be transferred back to Bengaluru and also sought for grant of leave in those representations. The enquiry officer has recorded the following facts:

" That instead of joining her duty at Publication Division, New Delhi, after regularizing her period of absence around 2 years and 5 months, she still absent and kept on submitting representations from time and again for her transfer to Bangalore and further extension of leave. Publication Division vide memorandum dated 27.07.2015 had advised Smt. Vijaya Kumari to join her duty immediately; failing which, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated as -4- NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB WP No. 26106 of 2022 per extant rules. She was informed that her request for further extension of leave would not be acceded to.
That Smt. Vijaya Kumari had reported for duty on 17.11.2015 and continued on duty till 29.11.2015. However, despite being advised by the Director (Editorial) not to proceed on leave further in view of extraordinary work pressure relating to finalization of India 2016, Smt. Vijaya Kumari absented from duty unauthorized w.e.f. 30.11.2015. Publication Division had issued Memoranda dated 02.12.2015 and 04.12.2015 directing Smt. Vijaya Kumari to explain in writing as to why an appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against her. However, she has not complied with the above Memoranda and continues to remain absent from duty unauthorizedly w.e.f. 1.1.2015 to 16.11.2015 and 30.11.2015 to till date."

3. The facts recorded (supra) speak for themselves. The only objection raised by the counsel for the Petitioner is that the memorandum dated 27.07.2015 was not served upon her. That apart, he would vehemently contend that the enquiry has not been conducted in a manner known to law. The said contention is not borne out by any material. On the contrary, the facts established demonstrate that the Petitioner had absented herself from place of work between 01.01.2015 to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB WP No. 26106 of 2022 16.11.2015 and thereafter again from 30.11.2015 onwards. The conduct of the petitioner as complained of and that too by an officer of the rank of an Assistant Director, in our opinion, is inexcusable.

4. The Petitioner is also not able to place on record any material demonstrating that she is having any debilitating disease or any material evidence or circumstances, which would demonstrate that it was beyond her control to travel from Bengaluru and report in her place of duty and discharge her duties in the present post.

5. In that view of the matter, having perused the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition is bereft of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

6. Be that as it may, it is seen that the Petitioner has virtually reached her age of superannuation and learned CGC has filed a memo into Court enclosing therewith a copy of Official Memorandum dated 06.11.2019 and the reminder dated 19.12.2012, whereunder the Respondent - employer has called upon the Petitioner to submit certain documents to formalize -6- NC: 2023:KHC:23719-DB WP No. 26106 of 2022 the release of her pensionary benefits. The Petitioner shall also submit all the documents within two weeks from today. In the event, the Petitioner shall submit the documents recorded in the Official Memorandum dated 06.11.2019, then the same shall be processed and the pensionary benefits shall be released to the Petitioner within one month thereafter.

7. The Writ Petition stands Ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2