Karnataka High Court
Sri H C Venkatachala Setty vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
INTHE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AY BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22" DAY OF NOVEMBER. Jur THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAN I BYR AREDDY, : WRIT PETITION No. GF. PF 18866 OF: Af 007 18-6 DIS) BETWEEN: SrA. Venkatachala la Setty,. S/o. Late Chow daial 4 Setty, : Aged about 49 years, Residing at Neu ; 14" Main Roads BSK I Stage, [1 BI lock, Bangalore =560 050 ...PETITIONER (By Shri. MR Shallendra, Advocate} eed The Su (feof f Karn ataka, Rep! resented by its Secreta iy, Urban Deven ipment Depariment, . K. GS. MS. Buildi ngs, Bangal ove --- S60 O01. ha Bangalore Development Authority, ». Represented by its Commissioner, Kumara Park West, Bangalore. RESPONDENTS
a "ef Ce LESS SEE SNR (By Shr. K.N.Puttgowda, Advocate for Respondent No Sat. Manjula Resp ondent Kamadoil, High Court Ge Pleader, for Res spondent No.1) . ernment This Writ Petition is filed uncer or Articies 22.and the Constitution of India praying to, quash 'by-the iss of certiorari or any other order as the case may be the, order dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure-FY bein ig arbitrary and uk } . further direction directing the. respo: ndent to. reinstate the petitioner into service and grant. all, conseguential benefits o eerety & SEP EL including the monetary benetits. £5 This Writ Petition is consng or for Hearing this day, the Em court made the following:
Heard. the. learned, caunsel for the petitioner and the learne d counse! for the re sponde nis.
2. The petitioner was working as a Second Division "Assistant with the second respondent and in that capacity, was issued with'a charge memo dated 26.03.2005 wherein it was "alleged that the petitioner had been deputed to the office of the Revenue Officer (South), Banashankari Commercial Complex, "4 Zz ve Bangalore, on 20.10.2003 and he had reported for duty on 10.11.2003. He had submitted a leave application sookir fae days jeave. [If was returned to be resubmitied. with the:
recommendations of the Section Head on 23 3.01.2004. ° The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absen it from 11.2004. to. 18.08.2004 and he sought to report to cite 29.2004 'alon e with a medical certificate fromy || 2004 between 19.2004. The petitioner denied the charges and stibmitied his reply. The petitioner claimed that he was severely ithdurin 2 the said period and submits ted. the : Medical Certificate fo establish this rane it reas, denied that he was unauthorisedly respondents -- lan Enquiry Officer and the petitioner had "contest ed: the: same and had taken up the very defence that wa wise in his. wapl ly to the charge-sheet and the Enquiry Off oe however ound the charges to have been established. On the basis' of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority had CA dismissed him from service. An appeal baving been filed unsuccessfully, the petitioner is before this Court,
3. The learned counse! for the petitioner would. contend:
that there was a certificate issued by the Me divab Boa ind whien he a ce ity agd } #3 8 i ok a if sess ur Ff: or oH Mec, Peden : ° fad cerned that the petitiorer': Mi vas suffering from POPALILLS during the relevant period and that' the leave apt ypc: ation was in that regard. Material documents having been produced in support of the same, t © same having been negated, it would clearly indicate. that, the, Pquiry Officer has ignored the material ofr pond ft atived at findings contrary to the cure vumstances t that are ples leaded. The Disciplinary Authority ther efore, noi . sccbpted "the report in the face of tha : sgsumslineds, The Medical Board which was constituted at the 'instance of the: respondents themselves consisted of a Chairman who-was the Head of the rospital and three Member Doctors Whi had clearly opined that the petitioner was ill during the re elev ant period and in spite of the same, the petitioner having AN Q tad been visited with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. is unfair and results in gross injustice. The leained counse! would also point out that in the show' cause. fetice » issued in the first instance, the proposed sunishment if the Inconsistent with the same, the extreme ste} 2p. oF di smi issal is conferred is an infirmity which wowld indicate that the Disciplinary Authority has procee ded with predetermination with a view te remove the peti itioner from service at all costs and at all odds: and if iS an iis veil that material documents t having been ignéred, whichwouid warrant interference of this Court.
45, TM learned counsel for the respondents, however, would p oint "et from the very medical certificates which are relied wii wt ihe same are unreliable as the certificates are ° issued in respect of a future possibili ily of the petitioner being iit for duty which itself is sufficient to indicate that it does not ZF Zo evoke confidence and has apparently been issued at the instance of the petitioner, to suit bis needs.
5. The copies of the two cer lificates which aré relied.
upon by the petitioner are produced belGre. Court ined it is indicated that they indeed do not. appear to be accepiable and if that view of the matter, the E nquiry 'Authority having negated the same, does not wariant i miter ference. : AS can be seen in Certificate dated] 9.08.2004, that a Conmpetent Medical Officer seems to have certified that the' petitioner was suffering from viral fever from I 1.2004, to 19.2004 and that he would be fit L for duty from 2.9.2004, Sueh-a certificate could net have been issued. on 19.08.2004. Similar is the certificate dated 26.51.2004 which again reiterates that he suffers from virai "Hepatitis and 1s-advised bed rest from 3.9.2004 to 30.11.2004 and" that | he would be fit to resume duty from 1.12.2004. The ". twe. certificates are apparently issued to suit the need of the yetittoner and do net evoke confidence, on the face of it, and we Ce <2 BER at the further circumstance. though is not the subject matier of findings at the enquiry, that the petitioner was guilty of earlier misconduct of unauthorised absence for long periods, would | c ms orn het ee iad 23 las rp os on ry eme punishment of disimisss| imposed on the petitioner. The incidental contention. that what avas- originally. intended as punishment was compulsory. retivement if the charges were held proved-ultimately, but-the petitioner having been dismissed, as villating the proceedings, is not a int interlerence of this Court. circumstance whicl would wart:
Accordingly,.the petition is Wsmissed,