IR TEE KIGH COURT (2? XARIQATAKA A1? BAHGAIQRE
nawan waxs 232 2o"'nax 9? AUSUST, 20:a,.f. z
yxssgmw
HOH*BLE mas. JUSTICE MEHJULA CRE§Lfi§¢ "
AXE}
aenegng m. JfiS¥ICE A,§,v2NUG¢§ALA_a@wfiA1 "}
waxy AE?EAL ao.792é£é3a3 ¢s:9:s;?
BET%E.N
syndicate Bank, 3*. .°.1;V '«."'"""
A body corpurétel'vrx.-é>:23§:;;--1;1fi:eci--"unéex
the Frovisians cf Banking Cdpafiies
(Acquisiti¢n"and*$:ans£er ¢£wunfler--
takings} Ac§:',~ .f:l_9'7G; ha_.v':'L«n§ its Head
Qffice at mani§ax, ua§pi;.xarnataka
Represented.herein by*&ta_»
Assistant 'General I5L=§nag'é:r
. APPELLARZ'
._ a{E';V y3.i...";_§1xf1j;'¢;,;;;1fa Ramfias & Anané,
'--§5s.tI1z7e>¢aVte:~.g;§. ._
_xastfiri Qgmailya,
$3!/c.ia.tes, Advoaates)
Ehis writ Appeal is filed ufs 4 of the
Karnataa High Couxt Act praying ta set aaida the
Order passed. in the 'Writ Fetitian n¢.1234£2@§$
dated 22f1cf2oo3. vuT,'
fhis appeak being hearé anfi reserqed; u$b% "a
coming on for Pronouncement of Jfidgment fi§is_day, v *
Mamjala helluz J., éelivereé the fallw;hg;¥ '
JUBGEMEflT ;
This apyeal is fiixedgqhalienging axe ¢£de§s*
of the learned Single Jué§3?*in W?,Nb;i2§%£2GO0
dated 22.10.2903. a _ u V
2. The presedt' '§§§e;1én£«§ank was a
re$pcnd¢fi£"béfozéfthéy1eax§éé"Single Judge. The
respondént:_ he#ein '_Qa% , the patitionex who
approached tfie.léargéd Single Judge in the above
~,writg7;petit&0fi"*.q§g;lenging the orders ated
A* 1?;a»99,:ana:*27.7.99 passed. by the Bisciplinaxy
afit§§;i£§} _a¢*" well as Appellate Authority
V_concérne§Q'* compulso£ily' retiring the
w£és9onden£/petitioner fram service.
""3L The brief facts that led to the filing of
%}the appeal axe as under:
/'V
In the year 1998 the husband cf ,:he
rasponéent, officer of the appellant«bamk*"w§$.
transferred to Santa Cruz Branch, Mamba: aga .g¢~ I
was transferred to Thiruvgnathapfiffigx +£;gm.v°
Bangalore. Though she chalfignged.vthé .Erafi$fex;
ordar she was not suace$5ful and refiértgfi fsré
dnty at Zenal Office, ufhiruvafinfifiafiurgm on
23.7.98. She was de§uted £QtB§n§a;ore £6 appear
before Special Court, CBI "$n: 3§;§gi§38 and the
said matter waa¥adj§urné@ t5 3.S.§3. Inatead of
reporting "55: V§aty'p¢n 4.8.98, several leave
applica£i¢n$'f§r%pri§i1§g@ leave and other leave
for diffe£en£.périé§$n¢@re sent on the grounfi of
._ill--h§aith co$pel;§§g her not to repcrt for duty.
A\_Ifiitia;§y. t§a._appliaati0n far leave though was
nét" sfipfi5rtéfi" by nedical certificates, later
V mediéal ;der£ificates were alga sent. fiowever,
u'";éc¢ording; to the appellantmbank, they did nat
«" §mét_§ha reqfiiremnts of the rules of the Bank.
. <:bi§%iplinary proceeéings alsa cam ta be
'"*. [initiated on 21.9.98, whiah ultimately culminated
-$
intc punishment of compulsorily retiring her rrom
service. Simultaneausly regarding her leave,¢t¢;
she was directed to appear before the; Ehfl;§§fiq_"_
Board to consider her fitness for rep9rt¢fig:£or;"
duty and the Board. u1timate;y g¢ggs¢a{rn§:u»§ig,f
weeks rest before sher_ repdrfed fidrrr &nEy:"':'%._rf:'r'.,<'2'9.7' :s;}ggrj::.éugé by that
order, she appréaaheflfrfiéfiieéragd1Sifig1e Judge in
the abmvé writ fiéfiifién éfid"£he learned Single
Jucige aildwéd on 22.16.2863 by
a. deta.:1eci'g2~c1er". ._ V'Agg:§5;eved by the said orcier af
, the l§§rnad SingL§_§udge, ____ the Bank has preferred
3rthénpre$éfiLr§@peal.
"rér""ffierrréépondentwofficer and her husband
V'V_were'aSenicr 'Management Cadre Scale Gfficerswlv,
u'";HerThu$bafid was also working for the same Bank as
'"[§hief:Hanagar at Bangalore.
5: According to the respondentwemloyee,
JcQntrary to the palicy cf the Bank she ané her
husband were posted ta different places ins:§a§
of posting than at the same stations,….
several. requests in this regard were af
Therefore, they were not able it-5 ‘:1;,ivfie”..&t€eg§?§tisf£*1:?
one place. Ultimately she wzgs ‘bf.
duties as per zr£:zrs::randz::aV»
its the order of transfer VAVtz:;”‘xep9rt.’£br_AA citity at
Thiruvananthapura zofii”o£§;¢e §fi 2§;?,9s.
6. The wnaga p£¢bi@m V¢¢§m%n§§& fram this
tixm onwards’ way*::_ §:.§ec;_”I:_.;§.iied to appear before
Special, ‘;S’011_I’:.A:t::V:.. H’ ‘ion 30 . 7 . 98 to give
evidexzséy -as. “.:=’i”-».A =aiut:né’ss.’ when she left
E§3hiruvana2it2:a*a;>;zi£:;zn.”V’éazrffiigzé to Bangalcare she even
infoxzfinéé znepu1′:y.._ Géne§:a.,1 Manager of the Bank that
h«:té:3:”.&_iL$re§e?;;1r:_é*..;nay be required at Mumbai ta assist
he? t.¥,*3..-‘Set up the house at Munflaai, as her
‘ husband vwasn }t:.rax2sfer1:*eci ta Munxbai. Km-raver, the
T “”~._ €.’BI ca3ze’a5_ §3Lt Bangalere was adjcurned ta 3.8.93 and
‘aV£her¢éfter, she sent a repxesentation seeing
‘u §riv11ege leave for :0 to 11 days fro 4.3.93 ts
14.8.98 to set up a. house for her husband at
Mumbai. A letter was also sent in this regard.
Howaver, her application was rejected and she was
requireé to repcrt for duty immediately. inétéééla
sf reporting for duty, the respondent§ém§i§§éeT*:’
said to have suhitted one mare leave é@fii£c#ti§n=
on 18.8.98 to extend her §xiv;iege*,1eévé’Tag*3
uedical grounds frmm 15.sj1g98 fa 2,9;§é;gmWThis%
also came to be rejecteé by Efigig efiaufigémgt dt.
25.3.93 and she w%§f~¢w§ni i§£§fimed {fi$£ her
absence would, be traafiefii g#:vuh%§£h9$i$eé leave
fram 4.3.93 agfiagfis, but éné §§§l§fiée officer aid
not repart3 f¢t;:dfity?fi2 VCn_ £fie*’cther hand, by
applica£ion_ &@ta@ _6;§}98. fihe again sought for
sanctionf’9£’_héx_f§ri§i;égé leave frag: 4.8.98 ta
2.9.98».by’ a$cl¢sifig nedical certificate and
J’app1fiéd;§cr sic$”1ég§e from 3,9.9s to 25.9¢§3 on
‘half “p§y .§Lle$anaes. This sick leave was
xeja¢ted .b§ .énethex enaoxsement datedj 9.10.93.
Eurthéx; ;§e respondent~Bank by endorsement dated
::2;ifi,$8” informea. the empleyeemafficer that the
rfréqfiéfit far grant of sidk leave was rejected and
the: absezmé from é . 8 . $8 was
unauthorised absence for the teaser: S’tat§€.§;-
saié. letter. when the e1r@.1.oyea-_ffi_¢é5:”*–
report fer: duty, fiiscijgalinary ~.$;ut:hQ.§’i£3g
chaxge simian dated 21.9.98 c:e::£ég;.1€__V_VVac_}:sVA
af nn’.s-czonzziuct as Div:i:s3f. ona.l ‘ of
Thiruvananthapuram Z’ei;; é.:3, chaifie 1%
reads as under:
That you
haxgéem, ; *1:;§unc:£i..§nirxg_H_ Divisianal
Ma.;r_;ag_e3:1 AV 22.’; {int . Thiruvananthapuraxn
siréce’ while functicning
your 3§««;$s::1i:V;Vi.c§11aL._ such, you absented
diu’i:i_§=;s” frmn 43.1993
V-‘.[.r;2:it;{£3t>1z*cA. },.:>z~:i;é:” pe3:m3.’ss3;on/sancticm of
cnwarés
3,¢a.’s§’é£.§§~..-:2: treated as “una.utha>3:,i.sed” by
H t’:.1ze ‘«:_Cc$mpetent Authority, as morefully
V’ ~ :,fc1esi’:ribed in the statamnt of
iirputaticns of misconduct on your part
appended here below .
treated ” -. .
That by your above acts yea ncfi
only absenteci frcm éuties unaut¢ris_e=~g{_ii’j{”
but also failed to discharge _§egfqT
duties with utmost idéfiviigfi {.gn§
diligence, thereby i§:’ior;Vtré:ven_éd
Regulation No . 13 {V34} _ V::e:’.-zici 1 . .
Regulation mo 24 o£u $yndiaaté« 3afi3MWs
Gfficer mrzgbloye-as’ {Cn<:iizr:t}.._VReg'1ila3.Vtf5i;;gx?2
19?s. ' " ' "' "
Arti¢;a_e£:éfiax§e g§;g;lmgat while
f§nctiO¥1:i;vng;;:}:\~\,.-égfi _ v ;}j,{rj;éi§zir:aJ§” ‘Vléiariagex , at
20: #s =,$i:a:.ted above,
you .yo’11§.’a§élf’ ‘–frcéa duties frcam
4j3.199é°¥_q§war¢#=__witheut abtaining
prifir pe :’z::.*§¢é;.’=§§::::)>T:’1;4$Té§;:1c:;’t.§.or: of leave from
the ¢egpetent’Agt§bxity. That inspité
_<§f" ;repea%:geg6. izzstructionsfadvice from
" fly 2 General Managar , 20:
V’ ” thapuram, yen failad to
‘[;e§c£§__£§r” duty and. thereby’ exhibited
=.’é.:i.$_c:zi*:«e_;Ac;3j’;i.-Aencze to the lawful and
reasanahle instructions of your
” I . supériors .
That by your above acts , you
failed to discharge yam): duties W15. {:11
“€.fiZ3.’£’£3St devcticm and diligence , thereby
wg_
ccatxavened Regulation 3(1) reaé with
Regulation I~I.24 of Syndicate
Officer fixzplayeas’ {Cozzci*g:§ifiI:}”” *’
Regulations, 1976.”
7. As a reply to this ~ _
all the charges alleged “‘-the ‘<':ha'..rg'e Wséia
sent 3 letter dated 19.1o.9s. 'w,
8. Being not sat’.i.$£i:a¥ciV.3e»x£.t1-ii ,expla.n.ation
offered. by ‘i:1*vA&. ‘l’:v*!.1z=_,=.’I.i5~3:f”‘A”;’l’1;iV’a’1-;{f_ .§)’,E:f.;;.c:éx;:.’Vrbisciplinary
Authozrity c__:f *::gy .5.’é.¢.:ed. 27.10.98,
appointaéed o’:_A:1Ae’VT.f’;§.._&P General Manager,
Reg;i.f:E:i.cex:’ to
” have bed rest from 14. 3.1. 98 ta 2E . 12 . $8 . She
further sought the adjcurment cf the Enquixy
9r¢¢eedings till she campletely recaver$§ f$¢§LH
her ill~health and was fit enouh to raéume fie: *’
éuty. .wW-
9. By letter dt.1a.11.38 gtfié’?¢agggéfiég€2f
directed her to produce nééical cértif;é&;a_fr&m
a competent medical officer §Q a§ t§*p§fi$id§r her
request for sanctien §f sick ieamfiyé On 19.11.98
as the empleyee-office; dgd fifitragyéafi before the
Enquiry o££i¢er}j«pge1im¢harg”fenqgiry was helfi
expartea _é§@§$§:V»”$é% .[at zanai Gffice,
fhiruvann;fiapfir§fi$ §fid4fitfie employeewofficer was
&ireafiéfi t$ #@h&it ‘i£é list cf witnesses and
x fiagu§$fitg ts dé£éfid harself in the Disciplinary
?g駧éa§g§$[‘L” Again she subitted her ieave
ap§l;§at;¢fi _éeeking extension af leave frm
<__';§.11.93 ; to 26.12.98 along with meéical
"=:V¢a#£ificate issued by Deputy Chief Medical
-Caffiigér, Rank of Diatrict Surgeon of Victcria
V fib$pitaA, Bangalore. The said Certificate
“= ” f?:ndxcated hex nmdical problmm i.e., she was i&l
A<.B0a:é £br.,fiadical examination.
"_appear
_:f2s.4.99 to
-11.
and unfit for duty and reqaired treaent afi$ §¢§g
rest for six weeks fram 14,11.Q8 to 26-1fi.9§ §fl§ F”
to past mencpausa; depressiQnw_ E¢wé?ét,V”
appellantmbank sanctioned siék fle§vé_”§§r
period fram 25.9.93 direntigg hex ta x§p¢:;W§¢r%
duty an 28¢12a98w She was fisfi afile ta tfipfirt for
duty’ on 23.12.99. §§§xe£§§g;f;:h§”.3ank :§farmd
the employee-officerfiHifihaiibghé£r i§§§ence fram
2?.12,98 ¢nwai%§ was i$iea£§fi7»g$7Vunautharised
leave andi £fi§=§§$@§ fi§fi1dfl;fi§t~ be counted for
$e£vicgVtb-%§§’€é£mifi§1’§éfiéfi£s payable to her.
As th§;gp;oy§§§§££;§§%fi§ia not report for duty
an 29.12.§e,”thé.sa3k.§y its order dated 15.3.99
,_direa¢ea the 5§£:gar_to apper before the Medical
Again another
m£mb _datéfl 2i;4;99 was issued. directing’ her to
Viatcria
f¢r§° maéiaal examinatien at
“”,fié$pit§l, Bangalore, an 24.4.99 at 10.60am. In
« f¢p1y to the zfiam, the employeewofificer sent a
v:fiw§ical certificate frcm Kumué flfirsing Hag dt.
the Bank informing that she was
ti%1€ax UV
:hhé?f
amitted to the hcspital since 18.4.99
was still an inpatient in the }’1c>sp:i.’£::.=a’..;’i:.”. H
further” sent another letter ”
expressing her inability to 11′:.:e; f’c>;J’;fe¢.
Medical Board earlier 31¢
hospitaiisaticn and’_£z1rth§i:¢VVV:’».::;i2eR the
Bank to permit her £o $ppé§x;§§£¢§§*ged;c1 Baard
for examination pa and 15″‘ of
may 1999’ befmre the
Medical Bo:a.4}rci::_”_” Medical Board
submit:§dma=%§p$§§’%§§§sifi§”fi%r to take another
six weegiis “x’feé.i:,. before resuming ta
her nc’sz:ma.1 é1ut’y.V A
_ “*-iie J?”‘:4:é;a,v;wh11é”;”” the Enquiry Gfficer had sent
a._ 18.2 . 99 to the officerw-ezzgaloyee
infaggiging that enquiry would be new on
iiowever, she requested the Enquiry
‘€i£fi¢é;r to pcstpone the Enquiry 3.3 the doctor had.
‘V”~v.___””.2ad1};’..se«d. her fan: cmrplete bed rest till 29.2.99.
aSeH2i§ also wrcte another letter dated 21.2.99 along
with the rmfiiczafi. certificate. The Enquiry
Officer praceeded with the Enquiry by pex-za:*;4§::t”iL%::z§g”‘v._4
the pxesenting Officer tn exaznizze the : ‘
witnesses in sugport :31? the _al.legati}§ig:s?.::4 ;§.fl V ”
charge memo on 22.2.39. It ékzas
the an::p3.oyee–officer byV’:3.e_tte:i5-..
The mrgplcsyee-officer makesv ‘§’ z;epr<é'2ia-§£i*:':a.ti er; on
13 . 3 . Q9 precedural
pointing' ox;.L_;k: VA ~
irregularities VC:0t£KI%.itAi}§<%3. offiaer
during the «She requested
the Enqu.3'.1?45,; the witnesses
exaxnined """ and afford an
.§.5-€3X:”5&I¥1i11e them. This
z;’epresae11té3:;i,f;$n. téas rejectem on the other
.._hana,«.§_biy’~ hisV”A’2:e;{;5§:1:i: dated 20.3.99 the Enqmxy
A’~.’0:§?£;i.c.-flex acznclusion that the Delinquent
<3§E.fif:_e;;zf cf the charges alleged in the
_c:har§'a '.}'fhe following find.i.ngs were mada.
' v; H *'Q'J.:R$ "FIRE mas 4"
disczussed above by me and on analysing the
..Ve§;;;§c1,enca brczught on record I hold that,
45;-
13.. The report and records er the entire
Enquiry rroceedings were submitted to the
Bi:-miplinary mzthcsrity of the Bank
Disciplinary’ authority issued a. second
notice datad 26.3.99 to make her repre§{@;:ntrti.or;tb
on tha findings of the znq§:ryfl”o££re¢r;*_tr6§_tf
14.4.99 she replied pointing oat the dgfiéits ifir’
the findings cf the Enquiry §f£icer*ahd refirrrted
to exonerate her ;xz.15i 1,-,5′ the«””;>rt§}p0sed
punishment . However, the t’ Authority
concurri2ig’t’ at:ft’£1a””.»findi’ri§”tr-with the Enquiry
Officer rpassedr”é§. Greg; _@éted 17.5.99 imposing
punish1mntVVV’v,§>tf . ;c:§:rtg;_’}’é..’¢.£::¥L.{>r§,r retirement from the
.._servi::§¥er “of bag}: with inmediate effect’ .
IA’-._T}ii;s:., challenged bafore the Appellate
A’éit2if<$r;E.gt§' :'V";2zv;ciAV.:'t;Eie appaal. came to be rejected by
the ""App§a7lla.:te Autherity by its order ctated
"$?faé?,?,99:;7
"A12. According ta the appe3.3.ant-Ba::13<; the
xiiéarneci. Single Judge misdirected hirnself both on
[facts and in law whiah resulted in the passing sf
an errcmecus order. Inspite af cogent argtznzeéxgts
none of than were referred tea in the .
grader and the learneci singie Jngige pr:3c;?ea§3;*ja;iiV”«§:i–§h ii
the impugned axder with§ut,-_£$kifig’ iimte,i
aonsideration aats of the ,_._.z*esfi£:t§iieent~o§§:’:i<9§§_«i.' "
the appellant bank regaxdifigiéstabliahgeiti§§ her
defence and so A' 'V::§;é§3f3$V¥'*3'€§xzce'VV'A:ex}§en ta
appoint an assistant behalf.
There was 33.03.. acticm on
the part csf” .- Therefcre,
fig lglazffig. made against the
appella:i2t-§’>a:1Ili:!’~’:’:- ” of right ta be heard
was not c?a>:;s.:<*.V;:1éi;*_e.§§3.;'ixiaffihe right perspective by
the ;.§§_ia§:I:ed Sixzgicé Jiidge.
further stated that the learned
é’:»”:i’ :.t1g3_.e’1 has proceeded on erronecms
‘ pare;-§.12.r__z@t_.’i;<a!1i:!:é'~i' Aithat appeliantwbaxzk did not afforci
E""<«.__Vs'ufficiez;9é opportunity tn: the zmspcndezzt-ba.rflc:
to defend harself and this opinion was
based. an the numerous rsnedical certificates
_ uivfurzzislxed by her. ffhe learned Single (Fudge
ignczreci the fact of the officer of the
qnestian ancompanying hex husbané to hgé ggfi£§e7v*
place during the relevant peried
medical grounds. 'Ehis has c:ow< 'iv
the argmnexnts as noticed"TV_f~3:_¢m bfé
the officer of the bank nofié than
the husband of Responc;ié§nt~–%$f;!§i¢ie:z:_;»_ 'Q_
14. 1t is contenaafi that £figfi§g Ehe leaxneé
Single Jiidgé ité. ‘fihat leave cannot
be claimed _as ]g£ “x1§§£,;’erzé§ in holding’ that
reason.s£: ha;_vra~ ‘£;;:V–«.I_3_V£:».c;L;£é.:1__ refusing the leave. me
learned ‘.’3’1;cig;e iigiiared the irresponsible
attitu&$_ é£. Athé *xésponaent~o§§icer of the
V. “azzspel-.3.§a:;i.%;A~b§’a~.;;k iii “”” ” applying’ leave from 4 . 8 . 98
~ graunci :21: the ether. Grant of
lea*.:fie A i..:f’L-.5-zsie discreticn of the sanatianing
_ V23nut}’;oz::zt’3′{g_ The learned Judge was not justified
digging ta the conclusion that the action of
‘– . *bT§Jz–‘.§ ‘afipellantwfimzk is arbitrary and contrary to
“~ i”é§11lations. The learned Judge ought ta have
“taken inta consiaeration the attitude af the
‘\.»*§
“based on
B@partantal Enquiry.
-§$_
respondent-wofficer of the appellant Bank balding
an ixtgortant positiczn of a Division £éanage;:..V’_:i’3%t.V_
behaving like an mtdinaxy c.’Lass–IV
clainzing privilege leave and ether V ‘
raquirements of sanction of iv ‘$253
_reg12.1at:i.ons were tota.1.ly _ign’3′;*-efiw. wheI,’1§szr:ei:’° i::§f71é’a V
respoxzdent–officer of the %3j_>;#.iVied
for leave. Ehis wag ne£”*$: “agl taken’ into
considaratian by the iéarfieéysiggxafandge. The
learned Jzzdgev ainote of the
fact: thfit Hc>’::~.i§’f;_1V1e V enquiry noting her
absence v -tlies Vef£iv;i_e1§T”‘..%i&i;1ic2urned the matter ta a
fntmze _d.até”-. with t?z:_eV’~~*$?o3.e purjgose of affording
“‘~h_e;t: 9 §p9rtufi£t3r…..t’o appear before the enquiry,
‘That she fiifivfiét make use of the said oppcrtunity.
Gn’gt.:i:=e Viiandé, she persistently sought for
fine ‘3.,ea?;%gje ‘for the other and theztefora, the
fgéyxgmaatz Enquiy had to he proceeded exparte
: afid’iae Enqfiiry Officer had to submit his repsrt
the available material in the
The appellantmmuagmzent
aso could not wait indefinitely fax the e@§i§§éé .
ta appeax’ befare the enquiry; therefo£§ st%i§i T*
aation deserved. to be observefi’«i§ $u¢fi’@m%fifi§x ‘
where the officer of the Bfinf hid nb. réa§¢fi
whatsoever to behave in tfi§*ah0¥é~fianné# f it is
further centended by the apfi§i§an§’$ ¢§fi#se§ that
the post~menopausal $§§3$d@e§i§”§§%”§ disease and
the ra5p0ndent~Qffic¢;w@f t$§1B3fi %@§3 this as a
F16? to aveid #fit%§3i39 §ér §fi€g5” At 3 V$rY late
stage, she gafig %§»f§£§ BR? gxfiuse cf surgery.
Thia ig §fi&¢g ;f§§i fltfig igéfiéfice a£T the charge
sheat. gfl@we§e%;§fthe%é{fi;s. no justification far
‘$3
her finauth¢ri2e§ Aa§se$ca fram 4.8.98 onwards
“rgontifiuqfislyw h”~ It is finrther axgued that the
Q;e§fned,Singié Juége was not fiustified in saying
tfia£*.tflé’ £nq$§ry afficer did not aonsiéer the
.mattér ifiéefiendentiy by applyiag his mind and he
‘was §ia$éd, is totally erroneaus. The concerned
.¢fficérs were in the aadre of fissistant General
‘:=MRfiager; Beputy Genarai Manager ad they knew
VA’«;@hat they were dcinq.
//.
15. fimccréing to the a.ppeJ.3.ant’s counsel,
the Enquiry Officer after affording reas-zzmable
opportunity to the responéentwofficez: tr:
proceeded ta submit his Enquiry Report;j”‘tc§.. V’_~1fi_§1¥i-
Disciplinargr Authority. Therefore, the§£2~ ;1<.:~1
violation of principleas of: naffzural '1 j1;.§$'tV;.i;;§éj.__
According to him, the 7' 7' "
hex: responsible pasition “i;f;V.the on
extending leave withrgut _ ‘:rVé’a=_.{=:on “ax:
‘£’heref€>r£:–:;= _ 3;: =.2¥:;$Gi’pii’x:a__v”% Autharity was
justifivégd. ‘–inV fijzggjnjsinég’-T.Tj§z1ni’s1nraant of ‘cozrpulsory
:w:*et:£.ra:sen’cI’frcs;nVVVs§§:x%i’c;§fV; He has also challengeé
ax~:=ar{3_7?;§:;igLA.:>f }:é”a<:,]§V Vwagiges ta the re.spondent-officer
.t_§ie Single Judge.
“.” ;e§v§g_against this, the learned counsel for
‘V _the ‘res§¢n§ént-officer contends that the vexy
Enquiry into the ‘charges of
_{:;;;iui:1′.{driseci absence being acnducted exparte in
VM V.V:_(.1_’._f’fVi<:§e_x' 'V 3 "i:i}:imating the ccancerned
authgxfizfiitises, épep§11a;§_.t was not justified. not only
her leave applications but also
Ai'nitia£ii1:§r._:V_frisczfiiplinary Froczeedings against. her,
which w§,~re..:'~uiti1nately dispased of exparte. He
3"""«.__Vf"1:;:the1E}vjiontends that the ieaxned Single Judge
V' taking into consideration all the aspects
—–. ‘c:>£ the case was justified in saying that there
‘Twas no justification on the paxt of the
appellant-bank to deny the leave ta the
respondent;-czfficer, as she was suffering
post mencpatzsal prablmn, whilch :23. V’ ”
resulteed in surgery ‘Hysterectmny’
respondentwofficer &
3.8. Canning to the facts oiz,£<e2;:oxd,[; t1:ex-e"
me disputa so far as tra1fisfi§i*-b of .th;e
officer to the z'h1rgws;;;ant1:a;§§ég»a;i:'-»L.a.nc1 'tier. hésband
being transferred Mumbai.
on the groundéfitzfi for her
husband. as;-T_ sought far
privilésgfe ta 14.8.98, which
was re§e§-:ga.b3;~=.§::§ :§’- authorities. Again
she smzght fax’ léavé 5:: medical. grounds between
I- 3,518″;~–i:§§–$= ‘to 5.9.93. To bath the leave
reply was in the negative. Her
3.1’J3j€’.’1:1E”.e duty was treated as unautharised
“-,_ a_»bsenc:e ‘fgcom 4.8.98 ans-mrds. The 1.ea.r=:’.ted Single
~._n perusal of the records refers to the
.. f.<_–;o:'£ge "of the Deputy General Manager so far as
"–« .iéé1ave application on the second occasicn. Though
'Irate says she has not procluaed any xzadiaal
certificates , the reply ta the enp3.oyf§éa-
responéent daes net indicate such
fasuzzfi on the paxt of the re$pondent'¥=§§gff}.i;«':ét:'; " "
While it is true that leave canfi¢t.§e cgagma as?
a matter of right but grant " o;:E-. A'SLea$*é;e_ is,
discretian of the empléye£;x '1t_'igV_séiaw go
because lsaave: af any kin;1…..<$fcu3;%:i.L be' " i'.'-'€",.f1Z;$,:'.§.-'-'etti cu:
revczkaad, when the é:~::':a.g.}*«;a=::':»::},g3v;..' ivdfg-gétiblic servicm
exists.
19. $5 §sg$i_gg ‘tn; ‘3ag§ fcllawing an
a1;thor.i:’%;y of article 12 of the
Constitutfimfz » c§f£*– V there is no serious
d.,’?L$yu?.;7e’:. T.1V’1:i;»$’%_’ ‘a€zth;’t>rity could be exercised by
‘%;:on&§érr§e§. authority in a reasonable manner.
u’13hé:2:_e cannot be any arbitrariness or
bias §n théfpéxt of the authority. No dcubt, the
‘z%,uthcr3′:t3?’1. need not recmrd its reasons to refuse
4’ ~«V;{;’§;.;.,»;; ‘1’;.;3ava, but the action ef the authcrity must
“”§i.nc5.€,ica.te that tizere was genuine reason for
of the leave or leave was so refused
because of 93:1 gentry of public service .
Therefmre, ultirnately one has to see whether due
ccnsideratien was given to the request rrzafie
the acsfficezr of the Bank when she scught:
mdical leave. Bue consideration air’ .
depands upon several factcrs u
facts and circumstances of eacbg mas-eg’
29, Acaorciing to t’;12eV3.–§i=i;;t31r.=:-::3..V”£:<;1217.§:e£';,: '"ti::e
appellant, the n\en3gausal——– fiat 3.
disease, therefore t}ie;Ee. €«’:a .si– :.1<$ ' jVu§é1;.é,f.§.cat:Lc:: on
her part in not'–3:e§o3:tin.;;%{ f6r_"*<:1fi.fij{ the leave
was ref; e<:teId.. '.{}:;4';jye'1*1g.§.:zl' of the reccrds; it is
seen tha'.'E:= she in the seaond leave
V a.ppl.}'.;§}a'tion ::"tt_._V$V.'9.V9'8 that after she came to
'n';:ea..lth prcblem crept, therefore, she
3.: ef:a3.3.¥eV;’.T’.,i$ut that was rejected, She kept on
exté~:; ciiag~ ‘3:ie.–:r§’T ieave on madicai. graouncis. She sent
_ fsertificate issued by District Surgeon,
“*;*3.::jt:;’$§.;:f.a. Hospital indicating that she was
..__ suV§.§£e£i:1g from post-irnenopausal problmn. Hat
V.be;i.z:.g gatisfied with this reason, the authority
directed her to appeax bafore Medical Boa:-sat on
the ground that on various occasions she ayplged
leave an madiczal grounds ,. therefore 1, _ V Z
Maraagmnent wanted to ascertain her capa.’n.$§Vi.it§?.’V:’L:*té V.
ciischarge the duties as <:1';:£.e;':: Mana§'e;:–…::o;£"~.:the u
Bank. This indicates hiéden :=,$u$p.fLdin–n 1 ed’. ‘.r’._:eVs*’-.;..Ffo..”r’.* znore weeks from 13.5.99
bnwafités i,.he£:’1::w;re résfiifiing to narmaj. duties.
2i,::V”–«§?efi’;z~:;}§;.tely, menopausai syndrome is not
<::e:c13s:;f_i:.4<V:3.r~:e1;'e:r:1':L'.'%;sTTV. a disease, but it is well accented
T'.. that pe;gons who suffer frmm this will have let
";i:$7f _ V fihysical and psyahalmgical problan. In
world. menopausal transition can begin as
*.evz'ar§.y as at the age of 35, though away womn
beccame aware of the traxzsitian in their mint: in
tsxrafency of urination, eta. can be falt.
" :'aay feel rapid heart beat and they can
their fcrties .
actually be”cme aware of this after ‘
after the actual beginning of tha pr§$iém;» ?fifi =
duration of mencpause prabiem fiith nbtiQez§1éu5a§7f
effects varies from person»[_t¢_V..pe.§:svni1 lfie %
unaware for months tel: ..V/:l_!~1%c£>t:i.V£.f::ea’;;le
psychoicgical and ” A cfihanges
result in hormone flug:t1;{atiL:.§v1V1VAs.iV:L gel}. Ecnown
effect of the__” , a sudden
increase in a short
per:1.fi. “”” fa.c«::’.t;.§’V’V:v.’=*.:2;’.’:Vi.t:r.a: changes iinsozrmia) .
some t1hQugh ~,;Eaéé problem from physical
~’V.g;ffe_§.’:’fi/5% Ltigay Aé:ian.._____sti1l experience psychological
‘rfe3@it;«__e;d ta aging, at the erzci of their
Psychclogical effects such
«as dépr&$$i$n, anxiety, irritability, mod swings
pfi’:c>bJ.e:rss and lack of aoncentration and
_ ._a’E:;f<51:.i*ii<: effects sash as vaginal dryness am':
yeapie
have
'rhera axa occzasicsns when £13"-T35
-33″
migraine attacks- The cultural context within
which a woman lives can have a. signiff,i.£:.;;.z&#.;
imact on the way she experiences the m£fi§§§§$a£5 x
transition, In the Lfnited States, sc:c,;’:f.a,.”1. v_A”;’:\.c€.;:é.=:i;:’,’,_Q;”.aTb
affects the way women perceivsé nsefzci;-gxaigusé ,i’€’s
related biological effects* vRe$earch i§diéé£és
that whethar a waman views”x$ho§ans@ a$ a fiafiicai
issue or an expected. .3..i.f;e:'””c1i_’a:;n§<=;. .is <::'ar.z?e3.atec1
with her socio–accne2ni;c'stat:'u$;. upon
the way they ;i.f€,' ' :*}.*':":,e'.4'§.=.¥.*:§~.'ET:;:»”e§,..J the wamen
who ac::<:j.:Vé§tVs ' tféizsition, they think
in the V:p;os¥.§.=t.§.\r-esi the warren who aansider
it a3 3 1i'se'.y%<i.1?;'a'::a7}.'V._ ¢.§nai't1an look at it in the
'V " ¥1e§'a._'?::§.<vé; fiuflfiner « ….. .. v
'= T229 Eafiifig regard to the abcve fiacts, if the
zmaiéai who was treating her felt that she
' was ' 31£ic1ei:<;aing' mezzopausal depression and
:u.1¥::i;ra_a;.teiy ha: problma resulted in surgery
..'?"_.'::3-sf'£.:érectoa+ay* ,. which would aniy inaiaate that
~ , t}1é respandentmofficer not only suffered physicafi.
effect but also psychclcgical effect because of
her menopausal probleatz.
23. Many a time except enclosing
certificates the woman officer ear arpl¢$§3’e§: V”1i*§é.y ‘
not even. discuss such proble5::;»AA»w,1_th
higher authority. Syndiaaie
Regulations ck: pravide vlgavéé, VA
However, the procedure 6.oej§”‘«.;nc1; i1i:i.LV¢i;3’4t:eVgt1:::der
what circumstances refuse the
rexzgzest of the ezr@ic.:yéé;_ far.’ ‘ ;-{fish leave .
‘I’here£ei:fa,: “be refuse-.i:’t1yg nt:>:1_Ve5 bf Vlsuczh exigexxcy was made knawn
:%:e3j;:so:;éent~of£icex. She wanted privilege
lea’-we &Ti:::4″~a§;*xi;eA”1¢V.:~to set up 3. house fez: her husband
whc agzas .~3.:i_;§jr’ing 3.3.6-ne at Mumbai, as he was alsa
“‘u:.ransfé;j§,¥%ad ta Muzabai. This czannet he calleé;
“‘:i:r;3:g$£’;§~§<:z:xa.'bI£.<e on the gaxt of the respcmdent-»
"'+.__"'V""etz§§loyee. After her visit to Munbai, her maedical
xproblm:z seams to have atarmrzancs-eci therefore, she
sought ficsr 31.433»: leave. Sic}: leave could be
«3§-
availad on production csf nzedical certificates.
with the second leave application as already
stated abcive, she did. net enclose
certificates, but later, she has V.
rm-dical cartificates. There wag a ::f u
haczlc-aahe and swelling of feeizjt. .’
the authorities her prébiénas «.’%ri’%f:1g”A
leave applications. The not
acmept medical cer’E:i1;£f1<::i'*t£ésA L–:'j4;3:Er:>3<.."£.¢_ArTjz<A;:TvL'V_–:;.;:¢,t::2Q tiie. remzrfis found that thexe
was aasaia}. "xejgs§E.§{¢3fi":;f'~.§;eave both priviiege and
n'aedi<:.§_.'L__, i«'%i'£:,_'2:oV=.1V£– A"v::¥1″sidering the reasaaable
‘z3equ駒t :_–. o:E» thé “”*3:£~zSpsndent-officer. A3 alreaciy
~.s_£a{;}e*c3,_ the me:d..:i.c:al problmn of the
ré$p5;§defit;~{;€§’:L<:er was not enly explained in the
.':.eavé' aiipliéatians, btzt certified by the irsedical
",.:E2J{n§é3C".9'£'.S foliciwed by the certificates of the
Board, which would indicate that she was
suffering frcam both physicai. ané paychological
U effects of menopause syndrcam' Hence, the
-33-
bank service, the learned Single Juégoo w%g*W
justifieci in saying the action of the a;j:pEeila§:s~’E¥– ‘
hamk was not only arbitrary, huf*wasooooEIo:§ofio ‘
their own Regulations.
24. Then coming to thé:éxparte:§fi¢ooooifios
conducteé by the Dw®e5§5#§§$$§f§Wk ‘ in the
Departmental Enquiy, it fig 25: 5a; upauthorised
absence from §;$oQ8 fi;i§:%ho §;g§’a£ issuance of
charge memofV§g§§og§a@g§&,§§;§od_%o discharge her
duties with fiifigt oo;§Aoo§W£hereby contravened
Regulaoiofi;’ i§fi}L ofié%é; ‘fiith section 24 of
Syndioate’o_EanE’aoéffiook Employees’ Conduct
_VReg;$£ions; “aoo£he£ charge is that she was
u}Vab$¢fit f§o$*§.8.93 onwaxds for duty without any
§riot’ pok§i3$ion from: the oompetent authority,
and min ogpfitéj of persistent direction from. the
“a!conoerfio&~ authority to report for duty, she
‘-uogsoooyed such directions and instractions o£ the
*m superiors and therefore, she contravened
flraegulation 13(1) read. with section 24 of the
Conduct Regulations.
Enquiry Gfficar was none other than the Assistéat
General Manager cf the Zcnal Off;§ég *§fi VV
Thiruvanthapuram.
between the Zonal Gffice 33$ ‘the r$%§¢nfi$nfie H
officer was very Iuuch within tE% k6w;a§gg §§fQ
these two officers, why E§§\#haf§§ 3h駣§§”BEfik
affiaer was éisabled at una$ié_tg p§tfii§;Q%te in
the Eaquiry ?r¢ceedifigQ;_ On £53 first day fixed
fior Enquiry; Enquiry, Gffiifiég _fifQ§%éd$ with the
En ir 9roéeeéin’sL 3hi5 x_wduid create an
qu Y H_ 1 _ _ A _ _, V
impressi0u~t§fl$fi§;rea$¢néb1é~tflinking person that
the Enfiairy w0ffic¢1a w§é*;prejudiced. against the
responden£#9ffiéér: .” if the cfiargewsheeteé
_Vempl¢fiéé=d1d hefi ap§ear on the first day, there
rVw§$;fi0 imgaément to give ane more apportunity ta
thg7¢h§x§els$¢eted Officer. There was eagerness
‘ on the paxfi7é£ the Enquiry Qffieer to place the
R”” §a$;ti§n@§ expaxte and thea proceed with the
4° E§qui§y§
This was unreasunable and unfair
*» arfiitude on the part of the Enquiry Qfficer. It
» ‘ 5% was net prqper on his part in not adjcurning the
The entire ccrre3§ondgfiaé~
prreceedzings, whazz reasonable request was mada
substantiating the raasmx for the absencze.
25. fiext ciate cf heazing intixnated «T *
telegram c1t.3.2.99 fixing the dawte’ }2$
13.2.99, inspite of the aharégg ;’,e._=’.z:..«._:;se*I.–.’;=e~,~,d”~
mentioning in her letter shé”v.’t1ia.c§ mA@xekp¢a’
rest an rtedical advice t:;.3’i””-,2 ‘.:6:;fg;_§®.:zri:e:~. ti:>'”‘i:éi:'” Inspite of
this o;3a:naganA’,”L’v.’v$n§;uiry’_””-was j fixed on 22.2. 99 by
sending é.n_c>4thex’* En 9.2.99. Her raquast
by te3..eg;_s;;aza4″e~1é;,2vov’;2fag” was rejected. Gn 23..2.9§
s’}a.e “~sfé:i»iit anethef “” ‘telegram enclosing a medical
‘c._¢:&i;j.;€’:;<'§~.:z;.:é;.:e»v 'V'ae;§kx%;.sing her to take baa. rest up to
1?.?1f §9. _ fi¥;:cf;ug'h the Officer: observes that the
laafter and telegrazn were not recaived by
is apparéntly an excuse pleaded by him to
'*«T«'–jfi$gtii-'y his detexnrination to prcrzcseed with the
"'« Ei:§uiry. Therefiare, the learned Singiie Judge was
«justified. in saying that the Enquiry fifficer has
given a, go-bye to all nuances from the 3
in the departnnental Enquiry.
2?. when we look into the
that all the witnesses: e::.ér;*a3′:.’::ec3. 1 ttigaittt
Managmnent are bank off3f.c’:=¢;:V~§§t1:.%_’.A’ _ ‘ffiéx§£<.–;.§:e.':';§t1tere
wag no difficuity Jvtheir
presence in the No
prejudice we-q§_ the case :31’
the pxoceedings were
adjm:n.e<i"'v?x%§"t§1§7¢§:5 at<3*vV…?;Z;e rnaci'i<:-3.3. problem
of the therefore, the learned
Single Juétgfgéttiaé' _j'i:$;ti£,%.eid in saying that instead
_._¢£ jgxistfiing tneJrea%pandent~offi¢er exparte, he
déuiti igxiven her fair hearing by postponing
f.'i:_e"-t";£aaft't'é$i:xbV_ tf<§'v.':é.noti;er date, so as ta enable the
respandgxitféfficer to appear in the fixzquiry.
AA In the present cage, the discretion ta
-ttt’.-ctéazgléstitier the request for adj curnment of Enquiry
–«px’éceedings on reasanable ground. lies with the
” Enquiry Officer. The way the Enquiry Gfficer has
yrcoceesztied with the Enquiry is nczthing short of
capriciousness and arbitrariness an his part,
hence, he has violated prizmiples of
justice. In the present: case, the charg;.¥~=sh’§.éé§;?e§1j:”v——_ ~-
employee was unable ta attenc_1,..,,the
enqmiry fax ebvious reasons. A’
her ixlness and if shé-..__ haf_V iilnfisé, Vgthera
shcsuld have been cox1:.’¢;.,3’_.£:1era{:§.<;:;i " reqfiést. In
the present case, " .t'h..é.t*é no such
cansidaeVz:aE§.o:§§'.;'h. : :1f:.;.f5:av'e§::'szJ. t 'f'E<".§_'s2;&StS by telegrams
fo3.leswe£fl._ ' V the enclosures of
medical cérgifiéaééfi " rmt have any reasonable
and on the Enquiry officer.
@?%;Vi.§us3.’y*A.. Enquiry Officer seems to be under
that she was setting up a false
_p1ea.”;«..csf..__”it.saé§.§.cal grounds to avoid Enquiry. As
:’stated. above her prcsblmz was also
T:.§*.=a:’c’\*.:_;a’. fj.ed by the Medical Board and they advised
in the month of May to have anatizer six weeks
~4z:.”rest and treatment befiare she resmnetzl to normal
-33-
duties. There was definitely violation..VVT»-55xE_V_
justice in this case in the attitu6e__;’ é>f<
Enquiry Gfficer. when there is vgolgggaai ax
principles of natural jzzsticgei,
vitiation of Enquiry §?ro<:ee::i_i:::g's'.'~
29. There is yet –..;_:*e=.~a.$553:*s;_ ;’f:’.f:fi such
apinion an the part 3gse+fii:–z1§:§{‘~Si;i.ngle Judge.
Gne of the primary *2-ir:E»,.+:z:a;_e:;=.;.e=..§$¥s senior to
the Enquiry H v–fi’~:;$neral Manager
of the -.I’3’a£1I-it-“”‘:’.,V1§.–.$.:.l”$’i21~’.’¥.~c.i céharge wmemo . The
allegation”. ‘ i.s =’fi:}$ét ‘*.g:ii;’::ec§:i:>ns of the Beputy
General £»1an4a.ge;rVV”:ve$5::é »–cii;;3.c$beyed by the reapondentw
_ efifiggig, whau§a$;s for the charge sheet is the
i ett_ ér by said Deputy General ieianagar
£~1T’._RT;E£:V§a:’«~;>.V’V :53;-_. zonai Gffice, Thiruvananthapuram.
‘ He §:’–,a_,_s exagfiinéd as m’\3′.3. Re and the resp<:ndent-
T "-w__ H “§££:cia; superior gives evidence, the Enquiry
*.s:’3.ff;i.veL:e;1”
biased and the same is :i.z1ci.:i.c:;”‘=1tgé}:»:A3.A»V in .hi$
holding the prsceedings _ exp a3;i: e. agéL;i_;_3;st ‘~
respcmdent-officer. The ‘LEO
place his report ha.-mgld qty’ ugalaced
befare him not d# ‘ a&§xA§é¢#$.V material.
Therefore, inv fine pkéééxfi; is definite
that independent
mind to ;q:*ag*Egggigyw¢§£:§§r,}
30}, S§ ‘§é$i%§sg thé’ first chaxge that she
retnained. a,;bVs<-"enf,._ Aigfiaagithorisedly resulting in
.v..viol::;'i;;;ori of n<93;i;–s<.g:§z_'_:__gz:r._;"e of her dutieg with utmost
=__de§r'otVic~_n' na.r3$."'~-,dilige::ce and secandly in spite of
§'é:.:'*;'§T..:i._:a::«té1::{i_~vv._;i.1:x$t§:*uns and advice of the Deputy
V _seneta;_gawn§gex she failed to report far duty
éxhibitisxfi her discbeciience. The Deputy aeneral
233 administrative head of the zonal
VA Qffice at Thiruvarzanthapuxazn was cme cf the
Uwitnesses to sustain the charges. As the fieputy
Genera}. Manager himself was the canplainant ta
44$
afiiséifilinargé Afiihérity 1 without giving
act as a witness before the Enquiry dafiniteiy;h_
there is likelihoafl of bias in the enquiry*fiei&Qj 9; .
31. This report of the E§fi@iryfiQffifié:_%afi H
follewed by
Authorities without appreéiaging £fie f3¢§$V§iacéd
an record by the respq§dent=$f£iéa; fifi”herJ}ep1y
to the second shcw;é#fisé ifib£i§§ ‘– §here is
mechanical co§fiir$at§6fl $£vfih§ §%r§§£%e findings
of the mnqgx$y_駧:¢§;Ja§ g§fi;§§§ By the learned
Single _Judgé,r’55¥§%fiefi§%e; :%e}V%as justified in
saying §he.§§@gr’¢£”$§e Sisaiplinary Antharitias
cannot fie $u$t$i$®figm¥r<Simiiarly the Appellate
fiuthoxify §to¢ee5$&7 fii the same lines af the
due
Ecdngidéfafiifinifio the facts of the case placed on
récQEd.vH $hé%ef¢ra, the order of the flpgellate
Qgfinthaxifiy in éismissing the appeal is also under
AVfcfiéxLen§a.
wages,
32. Than coming to the payment cf back
the learned aounsel far the appellant
the action Vof tfie Bi§¢i§liaéfyJ
4;”
relies 123363′! MR 2863 SC page 255? in the casleiealfrf
M.E. swam ELECTRICITY BGARI3 2?. gm. J3§RI;2~§.?+..’_”:B{‘£’.E’EV§
In this case the order of ciismissai. w§;$ _”;€V:cu:i_}é§. ii:.::>”
be defective in View of vie12′;f’t:i¢ii” oi:’ p;-i.;:;jicip_}.és
of natural justice anal the Boawgrti :*:*~:_a:s <i£j+fiected'V
proceed in accordanae law,' '
situation their I;$’ of
Rs.s5,,9o9/was bac3cw$g¢ég- ‘~t11e ends of
justice . Learnggi’ Vgougéél’ relied
upen this _ ééfirt ta contend
that aw2~:.r£ 5’2′-53.; back wages: is not a natural
consequénce’ cf ‘ s}%.%:féin<j~T.T_a;sid5e sf order af ramval…
He furthe;i",_§acz;tVér;cis.'. in the above said case;
-‘1
a:>sra.r<;,i._§ "of. fufu-..__V ibacjz; wages was restricted ta:
It is also noticed in the above
c§e:s_<.:ee:§x~:$;_3f wi th the preaeedings .
333. Learned; aouzxsel fax: the respcsndent
,. *;’ei;ies upcm the follcswing decisions on tha
<.§i':@sti¢n csf exyarte enguiryt
1.1994 supp 2 sec 518 -a t32«3'I02~¥ Qf zz»3m:2;____=..v.
E.S.SII~3'GH V '
2.AIR 1993 SC’. 853 – mmxsamy Gf §’:z;.;n_.,2;.~:§”.;f<£:'_'».'.»5;.~»"'«
S . BRAMESI-I
34. The gist sf the abzfizge T
fcliows:
fihen the request for $&%§arnm¢fitjcf éqqfiir
an medical grounds ja31egéfi@§ a§éampafifié& by a
mdical certificate with
enquiry, it ameunt$ £9 Viblafiiégufifffirinciyles af
natura;””§hsfiice:5f* Ifi =af£érW a long delay the
penalty igp@$efi in a 6$§a%fimental enquiry is set
afiida, e$§$§ialiyVfi§l§view Of the preceedinga
._being§ écndnfiteaw axparte, in violation of
A’~V1p.r$,;m;p;es% _na.tuxa3, justjme, reopening of the
.:;’:rx¢7t advisable. When departmental
V _enquiry, ‘c§§dncted is totally unsatisfactory
. ‘§9¢aDSe’~ of nonwebservation of the minimum
°_%a§uiféd procedure to astablish the charges,
m__;9;figr cfi diamissal not proper.
35. ifize learned Ccunsel far the respondent
also relies an the following deaisions cm the
questian of payment of back wages.
1.{2ee4) 1 sec é3~UNE03 o£_f”:§a:$, <_
V . %BHUS'{3I)A2~¥ FRASAD
M
HOUSIHG BO@ '*1. C.£-flJDD£§.IAH_
. £290?) ? sec aegmcomzsszgnak k§fixA§AgA =
3. £20092 9 sec s9?«c.N.$§L3A~’v[<.srfiwg' c£*a
J?sI"9'K3 & KASI-Riflfi _
4.{2ee9) 2 sac 57o~Ra¢§ 5xNGa flag: &.’§fifiJA3
nawzanaa BARK . ” ‘u “«» fi
5.123 199? Kar l2§l, fH£<fiR§AfiEME§T as KOLAR
szswaxcw co*o§zaAr:vE*;cg§wgaL'»EAwK LTfl.,
v. 33: RAMA RAQW& 9TEERS;'K '<~"
36, _’l’1″11_eVabove judgments is as
fellows: V M ‘ ‘ ‘
‘the ‘”c’£i,$;;2.issal order was passed in
1_Vc:>§1Vt’:’%as:’e;x§:iofi”‘»__ ef the principles of natural
j§::a§§;t.<:e 'V.':'z:'*_e._s*3::2j;.i'ii.;'L::;g' in irsprczpex' enquiry, the
_e;::1p,1.5yea.." i's' entitled far back wages. R0 doubt,
,;1<::xi:ia.l rule is no work no pay, but however,
-giver: case if it is Shawn that the amrgloyee
‘w»za,;é willing to work, but was illegally and
unlawfu1ly not allowed to an sa, in that
situatian, the arzployee is entitled for an. 3;”-;2:.e
benefits including the back wages. In K
where unauthorized absence was not es’i:.afblisI£e>dT»
and when there is no d3:ja.inin.q& c>:§:’. AT ;:>_;3}V.~V.l–.1:fc;-.
excheqszer, grant czf back wages
allowed. Hence, though {Sf is
net automatic cons«=.=.f§;uentVA,…:§f.$on”r.__A<ie€§.§.'a2,%a§t:;;§n of
dismissal order hei:fl<j'–x§;sad'«*. } Court: has
ta exercise the facts
and c:irc:umsi:I3:aQé$__. of _eac_1'; ;: 2asTe%'l.f" fherefore,
exeraisé' 5&2" T.:;i:;Lsc.vEé:t3.<$Ia 2:eaS6:iai:a3.y and judiciously
is a Z!'£ii$t' 'in _su.=i:I3. ':::a.S=g'S._ In a case where the
eznplayee 'is; – te::fzz1i;x:é=1€:§:£1c1 from sexvice without
ejLfz::g1ir1'.z""–a;;;3,__&«where the delinquent officer
' w3:$W __nz3;t*, g§a.:i.__x1f":2lly arployed etherwise, and
light of the Managazyant net
V _be:.:x; §=– a:«:ie-Vta establish the czharges, the Comrt
:s é4c~.:um he fiustifismd to award £21.11 back wages.
'3'?. So fa}: as enquiry; when the departmental
té-fiquiry is canducted into the chargefi of
unauthoriseai absence which culminates in tha
/
-45..
fermality of comulsory retirement frcm service,
it was fauna that the enquiry prccec’c};i§;g:_Vs’V.vvA’
ccmducted exparte in viofzation of .
principles cf natural justice v§’c}f;,13_.c1 ‘_:p’f’c’§#e,?;’
and justifiable ts re-«span
ts set the matter at gasp, £§¢re hag .§§ _§é’
reinstatemnt of the em§lcyééc_ “$h§”*En¢gir1ng
Gfficer could. nets n%ve i§ng§ea:,£kg reqfiést for
adjcurrzment on medical _§;rL’c:i.ipri§;!.s–~«._:{Vécpégcially when
accompanied :b§rV._V ined.i–.ca._:T_. cer’t*:i.jf.3.¢a9§:es . It 3.3
z:ct?r:i:1g sTv11’cé:t73.’:V.V saj?:§.c 3.a’t::i.c:;xiV’v of principles cf
nature; ,.¢_:he enquiry ended in
coxrpulscry 4″3:’eti.:£fe:-::é:;?;V’*:in such cases, yroceedimgs
«cughi§’:”1~n;:>_t fits 1:’z:ave….«}}een held exyarte. Whenever
n,’c;hcV m;§;>J,¢yce “.is charged of mis-conduct, unless
thegef is ag9:e evidence indicating that the
~Ve£f.E1cie; “v_§srz§.$: behaving in a manner which was
of an officer; the officer cannot be
&:~__c£:a_’Vz§22i«scri}.y retisced. 0:: account of deficiencies
‘im the evidanca, ccmulsory retirement has to be
” ‘set afiide.
. V/’
,,4{_»’,-
33. In the light of the abcve c15.scuss;,.¢_i:.’Vg.;§¢1″vv..V
abservatians, we are of the opinian the a§§eil%fit–w
bank Eailed ta make out a°Wcasefl wafifiéniing H
intexference of the finding$YV#§ :tfié l§a®fiéd
Single Sudge.
Accardingly, the appeai is :éjacted; A
Kvs