Skip to content


Somasundara Vs. State of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 13 of 1966
Judge
Reported in(1969)IILLJ335Kant; (1966)2MysLJ623
AppellantSomasundara
RespondentState of Mysore and ors.
Excerpt:
.....4 to 20. it is open for the petitioner to redress its grievance through proper channel under the provisions of panchayat raj act. petitioner cannot directly make representations to the revenue authorities in the light of the resolution passed by the gram panchayath. writ petition is mis-conceived. - 3. it must also be observed that the order made by the general manager does not conform to the requirements of an appellate order which although there is no specific prescription in regard to what it should contain, be self-contained, indicating the nature of the charge, the evidence which supports it and the like. the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits emanating from this order, including the salary and the like for the entire period subsequent to the date of..........terminated with effect from 6 march 1965 'as per provisions of the standing orders.' the deputy general manager gave no reason for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated. he did not specify the particular standing order under which services were liable to be terminated. it is however clear from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18/19 march 1965 that there was an allegation of misconduct which fell under sub-clause (8) of clause ix(b) of the standing orders, and according to that clause it would be misconduct on the part of an employee if he was absent without leave or habitually overstayed without obtaining leave.2. but the deputy general manager did not say in the course of his order that the petitioner habitually.....
Judgment:

Somnath Ayyar, J.

1. The petitioner who was a junior assistant in the Traffic section of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was served with a communication dated 28 April 1965 by the Deputy General Manager in which it was stated that his services were terminated with effect from 6 March 1965 'as per provisions of the standing orders.' The Deputy General Manager gave no reason for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated. He did not specify the particular standing order under which services were liable to be terminated. It is however clear from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18/19 March 1965 that there was an allegation of misconduct which fell under Sub-clause (8) of Clause IX(b) of the standing orders, and according to that clause it would be misconduct on the part of an employee if he was absent without leave or habitually overstayed without obtaining leave.

2. But the Deputy General Manager did not say in the course of his order that the petitioner habitually overstayed without leave or that he habitually absented himself without leave. The complaint made by the petitioner in the appeal which he preferred to the appellate authority was that no enquiry was made into the charge brought against the petitioner. But the General Manager who was appellate authority took the view that the charge of habitual absence and habitual overstayal was 'evident from the records in the office and no detailed enquiry was necessary.' He also came to the conclusion that there was no need to appoint an enquiry officer or to order a regular enquiry.

3. It must also be observed that the order made by the General Manager does not conform to the requirements of an appellate order which although there is no specific prescription in regard to what it should contain, be self-contained, indicating the nature of the charge, the evidence which supports it and the like. The General Manager should have discussed whether the evidence no record established the charge and whether the punishment imposed was in the circumstances commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. None of these things was done by the General Manager.

4. However that may be, what is that the General Manager was in error in thinking that no enquiry was necessary and that there was no need to appoint an enquiry officer. The charge was one of habitual absence and habitual overstay, and evidence should have been produced that if there was absence it was habitual and that if there was overstay it was similarly habitual. It is not mere absence or overstay which constitutes habitual absence or overstay. Absence or overstay becomes habitual only when it is repeated with such frequency as would justify the inference that it became a habit with the employee to overstay and absent himself without leave. This important ingredient was not established by production of any evidence, and, even the Deputy General Manager did not say so.

5. So we quash the punishment imposed by the Deputy General Manager and we also set aside the order made by the General Manager in appeal. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits emanating from this order, including the salary and the like for the entire period subsequent to the date of termination.

6. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //