Employee’s Appeal Dismissed: Compulsory Retirement Upheld
Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & 2 others v. Smt. Veena M.
Writ Appeal 1534/2016
Before High Court of Karnataka
Heard by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D Huddar J
The present matter is an Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka arising from the order passed by the Single Judge of the same Court. The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition of employee Smt. Veena and set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement as passed by the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Department and directed the Department to reinstate her in service (though without back wages & consequential benefits). The Department's argument was within the employer's domain to decide about the employee and his place of posting.
Facts:
Health Claims: The employee was transferred to a new work location but she did not report, citing health issues (allergy problems) and a long daily commute of about 3 kilometers.
Employer’s Stance: The employer required the employee to report to the new location and argued that her absence constituted misconduct. The medical report did not support the employee's health claims.
Political Influence: The employee sought political to influence her transfer, which the employer argued was inappropriate and further disqualified her from discretionary relief.
Legal Considerations:
Transfer Orders: The court reiterated that transfer orders are within the employer's domain and must be followed by employees. Grievances related to transfers should be addressed after reporting to the new location.
Unauthorized Absence: Continued absence from duty, despite rejection of leave applications, is treated as misconduct under service rules.
Disciplinary Proceedings: Findings of guilt in disciplinary proceedings are given presumptive sanctity and are not easily overturned by the courts. The appellate court found no fault in the original disciplinary decision or the subsequent Departmental Appeal.
The court concluded that the employee's conduct, including the misuse of political influence and unsupported health claims, justified the compulsory retirement. The appeal was dismissed, and the original punishment was upheld.
