Karnataka High Court
Sri.Joginder Singh vs The Union Of India on 18 December, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115
WP No. 4984 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4984 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.JOGINDER SINGH
S/O RAM ROOP, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR,
CISF NO.053630010,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT/CASO,
CISF UNIT,
KEMPE GOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
R/AT NO.89/7, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
NEAR ANDHAR BANK,
BENGALURU-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H J ANANDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN 1. THE UNION OF INDIA
KUMAR R REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location:
HIGH MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
COURT OF RAJPATH NORTH BLOCK,
KARNATAKA
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI-110001.
DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED:27.08.2019
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL/APS
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL/AIRPORT SECTOR,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
BLOCK NO.13, CGOS COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115
WP No. 4984 of 2015
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003.
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/AP-SZ,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL /AP-SZ,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
2ND FLOOR, D BLOCK,
RAJAJI BHAWAN,
BESANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600090.
4. CHIEF AIRPORT SECURITY OFFICER AND
SENIOR COMMANDANT,
OFFICE OF THE CASO & COMMANDANT,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
KEMPE GOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
BENGALURU-560300.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA PATIL, CGC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-4 IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER
DATED.14.5.2013 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED.14.5.2013 (ANNEXURE-A)
DATED.22.7.2013 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ORDER
DATED.22.11.2013 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE R-4, 3 AND
2 RESPECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO
THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND ALL MONETARY BENEFITS TO
THE PETITIONER, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115
WP No. 4984 of 2015
ORDER
1. On 08.09.2012, the petitioner made an application for grant of leave on the ground that his father was seriously ill. The period of leave sought was from 10.09.2012 to 21.09.2012.
2. The petitioner was granted this leave with a direction to report for duty on 22.09.2012 and he was requested to submit documents of his father's conditions. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application for extension of leave for a period of one month.
3. In this application, he stated that his marriage had been fixed on 01.10.2012 and therefore, he required a month's leave. Without reference to this application, a communication was addressed to the petitioner stating that his leave period had expired and that he had failed to report for duty. This communication was dated 23.09.2012. Four days thereafter, the application filed by -4- NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015 the petitioner for extension of leave was considered in the following terms:
"Subject: EXTENSION OF LEAVE:
REGARDING Reference your application dated 20.09.12 regarding extension of leave.
2. You were earlier sanctioned/availed 12 days EL wef.10.09.12 to 21.09.12 due to serious condition of your father. After completion of said leave period you were supposed to report for duty on 22.09.12, but you have requested for extension of 30 days leave for Self Marriage.
3. Your request for leave extension and regularization will be considered only after your producing of documents in support of your father serious illness and your marriage registration certificate.
4. This has the approval of Senior Commandant/CISF."
4. As could be seen from this letter, the respondent acknowledged that the petitioner had sought extension of 30 days' leave after the completion of his earlier leave -5- NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015 period. It is also stated that this request for extension of leave and its regularization would be considered only after the documents in support of his father's illness and his Marriage Certificate were produced. It is, therefore, clear that the request of the petitioner was not rejected, but was impliedly granted subject to two conditions being imposed in it.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, on the expiry of 30 days leave, reported for duty on 21.10.2012. The petitioner stated that he was summoned by his father with a false pretense that he was seriously ill and he also stated that his family members had essentially summoned him, since they had come to know that he had got married on 07.07.2012 secretly. He also stated that he, thereafter, persuaded his family members to agree for their marriage and after a great deal of persuasion, they agreed for the marriage that he had already undertaken, and agreed to perform the marriage ceremony officially on 02.10.2012 and in that light, he had sought for extension of time. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015
6. He submitted that, thereafter, his marriage was celebrated and he also got his marriage dated 07.07.2012 registered on 03.10.2012. However, the authorities took the view that the petitioner was guilty of being unauthorizedly absent and issued a charge-sheet containing a single charge, which reads as follows:
"No.053630010 SI/Exe Joginder Singh of CISF ASG, Bengaluru, was sanctioned 12 days EL w.e.f 10-09-2012 to 21-09-2012 due to his father serious. On completion of said leave, he failed to report for unit/duty on 22-09-2012 as per direction issued to him vide leave certificate dated 09-09- 2012. He overstayed sanctioned leave unauthorisedly from 22.09.2012 to 20.10.2012 for 29 days. He reported for duty at his own convenience on 21-10- 2012. The above said act on the part of No.053630010 SI/Exe Joginder Singh, tantamounts to gross dereliction and negligence towards his duties. Hence, the charge."
7. As could be seen from the charge, the respondents alleged that the petitioner had failed to resume to his duty -7- NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015 from 22.09.2012 after his leave had expired on 21.09.2012. It was alleged that he had overstayed his sanctioned leave and he was, consequently, unauthorizedly absent from 22.09.2012 to 20.10.2012.
8. If the petitioner had, admittedly, submitted an application for extension of leave and this request was responded to by the respondents stating that the same would be considered on production of documents, the charge that was leveled against the petitioner of being unauthorizedly absent, would be completely incorrect.
9. A charge of unauthorized absence would stand when an employee remains absent without intimation to his employer and without seeking his permission.
10. In the instant case, since the petitioner informed his employer that his leave was required to be extended by a period of one month due to the fact that he was getting married, it would be wrong on the part of the respondents to allege that he was unauthorizedly absent. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015
11. The employer appeared to have proceeded on the footing that the petitioner had made a false statement that his father was seriously ill and that he had got married during this extended period of leave, and the basis for this was because the petitioner failed to produce a Medical Certificate regarding his father's illness and the Marriage Certificate that the petitioner produced was relatable to the marriage conducted on 07.07.2012.
12. In my view, this basis for the employer to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed a misconduct would be improper.
13. The petitioner clearly stated that he was summoned to his house by his family members by falsely stating that his father was seriously ill. If the petitioner contended that he was summoned to his house on false pretenses, the expectation of the respondents that the petitioner should submit a Medical Certificate certifying his father's illness, would be untenable.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015
14. The petitioner also gave an explanation as to why the marriage had been conducted on 07.07.2012 and why it was subsequently celebrated on 02.10.2012.
15. In my view, with the petitioner having been forthright in his statement to his employer regarding his family issues as regards the marriage, the respondents could not have alleged that he was guilty of misconduct.
16. The respondents have rather approached the problem in an unfair manner and have taken a hyper- technical view of the entire situation and presented the petitioner with a rather unwelcome wedding present.
17. If an employee were to state that he was summoned to his house on false pretenses and thereafter, his family took objection to his secret marriage, as a result of which the petitioner was forced to seek for extension, the allegation that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent ought not to have been laid against the petitioner.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015
18. In the light of the explanation given by the petitioner that his family was annoyed with him because he had got married secretly and he, ultimately, persuaded them to agree to the marriage that he had already undertaken, the respondents ought to have accepted his explanation and ought not to have initiated a proceeding.
19. The Disciplinary Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, have not considered the matter in the proper perspective and have taken a completely incorrect approach in coming to the conclusion that the petition was unauthorizedly absent. In such matters, the authorities are required to adopt a humane approach rather than take a hyper-technical approach.
20. It is to be borne in mind that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not get married and took leave on false pretenses deliberately.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46115 WP No. 4984 of 2015
21. In the light of the view that I have taken, the impugned orders, which have culminated in an order of punishment, cannot be sustained and the same are quashed.
22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
23. Any benefits withheld as a consequence of the impugned orders being passed, shall be restored and the petitioner shall be reimbursed all the benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK Ct: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50