IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE:
DATED THIS THE 28'"! DAY" OF SEPTEMBER, 2siiC T.
PRESENT
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE vL=Q.sAE.I%1ATT.1'T..' 7
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUsT1cE"'LBV._i f.NAGARATHi\TA";
WRIT PETITION 9ip";292;'i6j2'o;o{s«cAT)
BETWEEN:
MRS NIGAR SHIERIN 3E::.GUM _ «_
D/O MIR AX1MUDD11~»J_AL:;;;, HAN '
AGED AEOUT42 YEA{R_S _ "
R/AT NO.362. 1241?? *3'
BANASHANKAR1 11 'STAG_E" ._ ._ "
BANGALORE»56O'--0_70V " ' ~
' V PETITIONER
{Byf SS"1*=;:A V KULKARNI, ADVS.)
.m..»..........'
_E;.._ 4 THE MEMEER SECRETARY
" " 'CENTRALSILK BOARD
- _ SEE CQMPLEX
' Em' -LAYOUT, MADIVALA
_fBAI\-;GAL0RE-560 O68
. V " CHARIMAN
"CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES 9"
/A
_')-
CENTRAL SILK BOARD COMPLEX
MADIVVALA, BANCrALORE--580 068
3. SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
NEW DELHI 110 001
THIS WP. IS FILED UNDER ARTIo;ES"2>.'26iANI) 227"'--QP'=,
THEcmmhnnmNoRmDmPwwmoToQmmHTm3mEmR
DATED 81i201O RASSED BY THE CENTRAL AEEHNRTHETHVE
TRIBUNAL IN TRANSFER APRLICATIQN _NO."~356'/20058 THE
CERTHEED coPYcHruEncH;RsRR0EUcEo_AND'MARKED AS
ANNEXUREA,smmxcREESAMEISARSHEERYREH)ELEGAL
This petition coming on _fo1f"'PreliniinaryVdiieafing this day,
Nagarathna J2".TiiadeiigheEi??§i'i'o\MI11g':
°EQRfiER
_};:etitioTI"is. directed against the order of the Central
Adl'VfIiIv1iSi£Vi'atiV€..V'V '17i1bI.ii2a1 ('Tribunal' for short} dated 8.6.2010
Z-Rpassedd'TI'aIisi;e'r--..Agofi1icationNo.356/2008. The petitioner who
Virwas ~workITIg.a'S&Va";Junior Translator (Hindi) in the office of the
4.Cent"ra1 Biol}; Board, Bangalore, was issued a charge memo on the
the petitioner had remained unauthoiisedly absent
"duty from 17.1l..l.996 till the date of issue of charge memo
ya
E L RESPOi\3'D I 1:'
_ 3 _
ie, on 13.9.1997 and that she had left the country for Muscat and
has been staying there without even informing her office.
Subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
2. It was the contention of the petitioner that she _
for leave from time to time on the ground that she was and; it
that she had not left the country. When it
Asst. Secretary, Administration, Cerltral Sil1<d'B_oard, tvas
appointed as the enquiry officer fact, ihellejnquiry was
adjourned from time to time in4_.order.flAto:_givep_ Opportunity to the
petitioner. The petitioner appeared__beflorpe the officer and
on the basis concluded that the
charges levelled proved. Accordingly, the
enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority
ar.idl'on the enou'i1'y'officer's report, a second show cause
notic'ew'as"issuedtlcalling upon her to show--cause as to why the
:t.tV"'nI.fe~port ofdthe officer should not be accepted and an
Iappropriatel penalty should not be imposed upon her. In response
"sl'1ow:cause notice, petitioner submitted her reply and after
ll_:oo_ns'i'dering the same, by an order dated 26.2.1998 the petitioner
l1f--..wa'sV.rernoved from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
'petitioner had filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Central
5%
- 4 1
Siik Board, Bangalore, on 19.12.1998, which appeal also came to
be rejected by an order dated 2.11.1999 and as against the said
order. the petitioner had filed the revision petition befo.1'e._rthxe
Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Textiles,
Her revision was aiso dismissed by order It "
against the said order, the petitioner flied
No.356/2008 before the Tribunal {Writ petition Ne.34?'izi/2002 1
came to be transferred from this eottrtirto the~._TritbVunai). The
tribunai after considering the respec_titre_ the petitioner and
the respondents conciuded that the admitted her
charges and therefore’,”¢h_’e pt_1nishri1ent«”‘0j1_°ayeniovai from service
imposed on the andvproper and accordingiy.
deciined to interferevwithdthet’said.o’rder. Being aggrieved by the
order of thetribunai, the,p’etitior1″er has preferred this writ petition.
3. h’a\1e”h:eard..p:tf1–e learned cottnsei for the petitioner.
It that the petitioner was not unauthorisedly
or that? she had left India for Muscat to be with her
‘j._fiu«sba;rid_p1.a.nd her charges were not proved and that the
‘pt.-1._r1:ishrr}ier1t imposed is also not in accordance with law. Learned
9;
//5
counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order has
to be set aside and the petitioner has to be reinstated in service.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner aijid~.on
perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the…p_etitior1_~er” u
had left lndia for Muscat on 17.1 1.1996 and that she l
to India only during the course of enc{uiijf’procee;di.ngs,
charges as per the charge rnerno has been’._pr*o_yed
and in fact, the tribunal has noted thatithe petitioner
her absence as unauthorised during the of hler”einquiry and
also before the revision application.’ has been heard
before the if the charges have been
admitted by petition_er.l’alddition to that, considering the
fact that shevhadl the without the permission of the
is lals’o””aVserious misconduct. Having regard
to that “enquiry it is established that the petitioner
l he left lthellcountviiy vfrhich amounted to unauthorised absence, the
.jl_fpd.i_scip_linary aulthority as well as other authorities and the tribunal
in upholding the punishment of her removal of
f” ‘V.VS€_1_’ViC€.l; We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
/”
*6,
orders passed by the said authorities as well as by the tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-.i
S26