IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.1534 OF 2016 (S-DIS) BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED NO.147, KAMBLI BHAVAN INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED NO.147, KAMBLI BHAVAN INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED NO.147, KAMBLI BHAVAN INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER THE PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 IS NO.16/I, MILLERS TANK BED AREA BENGALURU-560 052.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI VASANTHA KUMAR H.G., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. VEENA M WIFE OF GANESH M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAMUDRA DRISTI, KONCHADY POST MANGALURU-575 008 D.K.DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI RANJITH K.S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.35246 OF 2009 (S-DIS).
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 20-3-2013, passed in writ petition No.35246 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner without back wages and consequential benefits with continuity of service for the limited purpose of retrial benefits, respondents 1 and 2 have filed this appeal.
2. The writ petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant with the respondent – Corporation. On 12-7-2002, she was transferred from District Office Mangaluru to the wholesale depot at Mangaluru. It is relevant to mention that the said fact has been wrongly notified by the learned Single Judge wherein it is stated that she was transferred from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. The same is incorrect as could be seen from Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is found at page No. 97 of the writ appeal papers. The petitioner did not report for duty and sought for leave on medical grounds. A Medical Certificate was produced. The respondent - Corporation doubted the genuineness of the Certificate. She was subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board. They submitted a certificate showing that she was suffering from dust allergy. On the basis of the Certificate, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, in terms of the order dated 7/8-7-2014. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed which was dismissed. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, ordered reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge was not right in ordering for reinstatement.
4. So far as refusing to accept the order of transfer, she has created a false Medical Certificate. The Medical Board held that she was suffering from dust allergy. The Certificate produced by her thereafter is to the effect that she suffers from back ache. Therefore, the learned single Judge was of the view that the penalty of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate.
5. We do not find any valid reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge to come to such a conclusion. She has refused to accept the orders of transfer which is in the same City. She has been compulsorily retired in the year 2004. The order of the learned Single Judge is passed in the year 2013. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason assigned by the learned Single as to why it was felt that the compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate. It is virtually a case of she abandoning the employment. Under these circumstances, the appellants were justified in compulsorily retiring the respondent.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the order of thee Single Judge becomes unsustainable.
1) Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
2) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 20-3-2013, passed in Writ Petition No.35246 of 2009, is set aside.
3) The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-