February 25, 2019
Case name: The Chief Traffic Manager vs S. Ganesh
The Appellant has challenged the impugned order, whereby the Single Judge of High Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed respondent’s reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. As per the facts of the case, respondent did not report for duty for about two years.
In view of the facts and circumstances in the case and precedent on the subject, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and made the following observations in the case:
The Supreme Court on the subject made reference to the case of North-Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. Vs. Ashappa, wherein it was observed that remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the respondent herein has to be treated lightly.
In view of the aforesaid verdict and facts of the instant case that petitioner did not chose to report for duty for two years after revocation of suspension, the High Court of Karnataka held that impugned order was not sustainable.
The entire case can be accessed here.