IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.41738 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. ABHINAND S/O VINOD KUMAR G AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, STAFF NURSE (MALE) OFFICE OF THE SUPER SPECIALTY(PMSSY) VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BANGALORE-560002 (BY SRI M BABU RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE (BMCRI) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND DEAN K R ROAD, FORT BANGALORE-560002 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL(PMSSY) VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BANGALORE-560002 (BY SRI MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT LAKSHMI S HOLLA FOR R2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.16.3.2017 AT ANNE-L PASSED BY THE R-2 AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for ‘Hearing on Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner who was working as staff nurse in the respondent No.2 government hospital, is before this Court challenging the order dated 16.03.2017 at Annexure-L, whereby the respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner from its service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P.No.16509/2016, wherein the respondents herein who were also the respondents in that writ petition were directed to reinstate the petitioner to duty forthwith. Liberty was however granted to the respondents to examine the records furnished by the petitioner to take a decision with regard to treating the uaauthorised absence in accordance with law provided under Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCSR’). It was further directed that in the event of any adverse orders being issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate authority for such reliefs as may be advised.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for medical grounds from 16.02.2015 to 12.04.2015 on account of ill health and the said leave was extended up to 30.06.2015. On reporting to duty on 01.07.2015 along with medical certificates the petitioner was not taken on duty. The petitioner was called upon to undergo medical examination and furnish a certificate from the Medical Board of the Victoria Hospital. On such direction, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and underwent the medical examination and thereafter submitted a report on 10.08.2015. The Medical Board had recommended that the said period be treated as leave on medical ground. Inspite of the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner was not taken back on duty. It is in that background that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.16509/2016. On the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner presented himself before respondent No.2 and by order dated 08.03.2017, the petitioner was taken back on duty. However, in a span of one week i.e., on 16.3.2017 the petitioner was again relieved from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. It is evident from the statement of objections that the respondents are bent upon reopening the earlier issue as to whether the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement. The provision of the KCSR have been pressed into service, in the statement of objection. The learned counsel for the respondent also reiterates the averments made in the statement of objection and submits that the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement since the Rules would provide that if an employee is absent for a particular period of time and since the petitioner’s probation was not yet declared, he is not entitled for reinstatement in accordance with the KCSR.
7. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusing the writ papers, it is very clear that the respondents have passed the impugned order which is totally in contravention to the directions issued by this Court. The issue as regards the absence of the petitioner and whether the absence would invoke the punishment of dismissal were the questions dealt with in W.P.No.16509/2016. That decision has attained finality, and it is not open to the respondents to once again reagitate the issue and pass an order in violation of the directions issued by this Court. Liberty was reserved to the respondents only to examine the records furnished by the petitioner to take decision with regard to the manner in which the period of absence should be considered i.e., whether it could be treated as leave with pay or without pay. The impugned order travels much beyond the liberty that was granted by this Court. No reason is supplied in the impugned order and no enquiry was conducted before terminating the services of the petitioner.
8. In the light of the above, the petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into services forthwith with all consequential benefits including all monetary benefits. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE