Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dri V Vishwambhara on 9 April, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Petition No. 13128 of 2013 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
AYUSH DIRECTORATE
DHANVANTARI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009 ... PETITIONERS
[By Smt S Susheela, AGA]
AND:
DRI V VISHWAMBHARA
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE
BANGALORE
R/AT NO. 501, 5TH FLOOR ,
MULTI SAPPHIRE APARTMENT
I MAIN, S G PALYA
2
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 029 ... RESPONDENT
[By Sri M Venugopal, Adv. for
Sri M Madhusudhan, Adv.]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO. 7187/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
KAT, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2012
PASSED BY THE KAT, IN APPLICATION NO. 7187/2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has filed this writ petition, challenging the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore on 21-8- 2012 in Application No 7187 of 2001.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent was working as Principal, Taranath Government Ayurveda Medical College, Bellary. According to him, he was not allowed to work as principal on account of the pressure of local MLA. He was compelled to go on compulsory leave with effect from 13-2-2009 and on the coercion and pressure of the local MLA, he was forced to 3 apply for leave on personal grounds. He went on extending the leave, since he was not allowed to work as principal by the local MLA. Then he made several requests to the government to give protection to him and he also brought these facts to the notice of the government. The government, instead of providing security to the respondent, went on issuing show cause notices calling upon him to report for duty, to which the respondent sent detailed reply. He also brought the same to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and requested to give protection to him and his family. Since he was not allowed to work as principal of the Ayurveda College at Bellary, he also requested the government to transfer him from Bellary to any other place. In the meanwhile, the government deputed another person as in-charge principal of the Ayurveda college at Bellary. In the circumstances, the respondent could not discharge his duty and he was also not given any post elsewhere. Subsequently, in the month of April, 2010, he was posted as principal of Government 4 Ayurveda College, Bangalore. He has reported for duty at Bangalore.
4. During the interregnum period, since he was not allowed to work as principal at Bellary, he requested the government to treat his absence as compulsory waiting period. The said request was rejected by the government. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request to treat the period in question as compulsory waiting period, the respondent approached the tribunal. Before the tribunal, the government contended that the respondent on his own did not work as principal at Bellary Ayurveda college and therefore it cannot be considered as compulsory waiting period. The tribunal considered all the correspondences between the respondent and the government and the request made by him to give him posting elsewhere, since the local MLA did not allow him to work and that the government did not give any protection to discharge his duties, allowed the application and directed the government to treat the period as compulsory waiting period. This 5 order is called in question in this petition by the government.
5. We have heard the learned government advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The facts in this writ petition are not in dispute. The respondent was working as principal of Taranath Government Ayurveda Medical College, Bellary. According to him, he was not allowed to work as principal there and he was compulsorily asked to go on leave on account of the pressure of the local MLA. Though it was at the instance of the local MLA, he was asked to go on leave in order to save his life and he was forced to submit leave application on domestic reasons. Later he requested the government to transfer him to some other place, since he has not been allowed to work as the principal by the local MLA. Though letters have been addressed to the government, the government without holding any enquiry in regard to the correctness of the allegation made by the respondent, went on issuing show cause notices calling upon the respondent 6 to report for duty. The show cause notices sent by the petitioners have been properly replied by the respondent. In the reply also, he has reiterated that he was not allowed to work due to the pressure of the local MLA. The government, instead of conducting an enquiry and finding out the truth about the allegations made by the respondent against the local MLA and even without transferring him from Bellary to any other place, as requested by him, subsequently in the month of April, 2010, he was transferred from Bellary to Bangalore.
7. When the respondent was not allowed to work due to the pressure of local MLA, the tribunal is justified in treating the period as compulsory waiting period in view of the conduct of the government. When such a serious allegation is made by a government servant against a local MLA, it was the duty of the government to find out the correctness of the allegation made by the government employee and to provide protection to him. Without doing so, the government went on demanding the respondent to 7 report for duty. When the life of the respondent was under
threat, it was difficulty for a person to venture to go and work as principal of the college.
8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the tribunal is justified in considering the period as compulsory waiting period. We could have considered the contention of the government advocate, provided the government has sent a reply to the request made by the respondent to his various representations making allegations against the local MLA, who did not allow the respondent to discharge his duties as principal. The government, even without sending a reply, is trying to harass the respondent.
9. In the circumstance, we do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk