IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORTE-.T DATED THIS THE 31-t DAY OF JULY 2oo3:.If " BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.;I'I* .1. A WRIT PETITION BETWEEN : Sn'.K.G.Karuna, S/o.J.P.KrishnasWan:Iy, Aged 45 years, V _ 15/1, Jain Tempe Stitect, Bangalore-- ' _J...PE'I'l'I'IONER (By I5.s;sts., Advs.) AND: _ '. 'Limited; ' ..... ~ * Bangalpm, my its Director, //\.. V . Race 'C39iu'sc Re'-éad, Bangalore. ~ ...RESPOND}3)N'I' ~ (By s:+ifsomasnekImr, Adv. for V. Sri.S.N.Murthy as Assts., Adv-.5.) """This writ petition is filed under Amcle 226 of the * Clunstitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order vidc Annexure 'C' dated 10.07.1997 as " the same are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, with a - 3 - direction to the respondent to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement and direct
the respondent to settle all benefits flowing therefrom.
This writ petition coming on for hearing, this
the Court made the foliowin ”
The petitioner is seeking a of [9
quash the impugned order dateti-1__
Annexure ‘C’ on the ground it is ii
and unsustainable, with _a i_ the
respondent to consider is fietitioner for
Voluntary benefits.
2. The following manner:
the services of the
in the year 1979 as Assistant
fiseibsequenfly, he was promoted as
— }:.’xee11tive Engineer. He was in service up to
had completed 15 years of service. It is his
. in the year 1994, he appiied for ieave, which
was sanctioned. iiowever, due to his family problems
:44
– 3 –
and circumstances, he could not rejoin the duty.
Hence, he extended the leave. After some time,
appears he feit that he was not in a position to
in the service of the respondent —– ~
sought for ‘Voluntary Retirement’ .1: ii
copy of the application seeking 3.1′
at Annexure ‘A’. Since the same–;§as’notV’ he”;
made series of representations toweon-eidei’ for
‘Voluntary Retirement’ of the
representation is on ii.
3. since the petitioner
was absent Evithotzt prior permission,
Efiiecip ‘if were initiated against him.
The issued with a Show cause notice as
Well as {memo to which he has filed his reply
” he eouid not inform the Corporation
continuous absence and also for not takm’ g
permission to go abroad inasmuch as one of
charges levelled against the petitioner was that he
S had left the eounay without obtaining the permission of W
‘X’
– 4 ..
the Corporation. The petitioner thereafter did not
participate in the proceedings before the Inqtzixy
Authozity. In View of the unimpeachable
Placed before the Inqllify Offioor, he has ~
finding that the pefifioner indeed
said misoonduot. The report : ‘A
DisciplJnary’ Authority who a “i10ti*I:.o
petitioner. The petitioner» ,Iz1oWe3;e1″:..”-not to
the said notice nor did he gtoceedhzgs.
Hence, the Discipkifjaxy have any
option but’-yo arid impose a penalty of
removal * » shall not be a
disquahiioefion foi’~ employment. This order at
on 10.07 . 1997. Thereafter the
is gain in correspondence with the
respondenztsv.pi1i;suant to Anne-xures ’33’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ to
,1 Vfo retire voluntarily and also for retirement
Since the said repmsentations are not
. V this petition for the aforesaid reliefs.
.. 5 ..
4. Mr.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that having regard to the faet’~.i
that the petitioner proposes to retire ”
service, it was incumbent upon the 3
consider the same. He further ; ‘ _
assurance given by the
petitioner has already deposited its-.
which was due from him’ he
submits that the respondenthe. the
5. counsel appearing for
the respondent’««subniitsA’ttiat~’iiimmediately after applying
_1eave’;~ tirie “left the couzntry and he was
He further submits that this
i V’ by the petitioner in his reply. Re
– iv.-fnither suhniits that the petitioner has been paid all the
benefits. Hence, the question of considering
fii¢_’;a;;i3rcsentatien at this point of time does not arise. W
or’
¢/,’_’
it Retirement’.
6. Indeed a. person is entitled for a wxitfof
mandamus for consideration of his case only, if ”
legal right. If he does not have a .
question of issuing a mandamus °
question would be whether the petitioner is it
a writ of certiorari by it
is not in dispute that the leave
in the year 1994 and it the
same was petitioner but
however, not chosen to
report to it was unauthoriscdly
absent pjthe the leave period, the
respondents option but to initiate Disciplinary
is to be noticed that only after the
oiscipiznazyii’ it was initiated, the petitioner made
311 appficnfionnt Annexure ‘A’ on 20″! October 1995 for
Indeed, the Disciplinary
were initiated on 22.08.1995. Thus, I am of
that the said application for voluntmy
retirement is not bonafide and genuine inasmuch as the
(
{
DCRG amount of Rs.32,085/-.
.. 7 ..
same is gven to ward off the Disciplinary proceedings.
Indeed in his reply dated 24.02.1997 to the memo dates}
12.02.1997, the petitioner has stated that he 00111.61″.
attend to his duties due to serious problem
was paucity of time to take prior T.
Corporation Authorities to leave 1116 i
for pardon. This admission sufiieierit to zliolri
that the znis-conduct’ is It
is also to be noticedthat is one of
removal from be a
It is also
brought to has aiso been
given Annexure ‘R3′ produced
file of objections would disclose
has been paid 1/ 31′ of the
of Rs.216/-», cominutation of
at’=Rs.40,539/~ and after commutation of
veompassionate allowance of Rs.432/- and
Thus
the penalty of removal, the petitioner
c/./.’
– 3..
has been amply rewarded monetarily. In fact the
removal also does not come in the Way of the petitie;;ef ‘e._V
seeking future employment.
7. Having regard to the
circumstances, I am of the View
not entitled for the relief soughifegf
is no legal right vested inthe ofder
imposing penalty is alee– :ej11sth in the
circumstances of in this
petition. V V ‘V
Pefifien Ie %
_ Iudge