IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS W.P No.48369/2016 (S – KSAT) Between:
Sri B M Ramaprasad s/o late M Munivenkataiah Aged about 33 years Working as Watchman (now discharged from service) District Home Guards Office Koppal Dist. r/a Bidadi Ramanagaram Taluk and Dist. .. Petitioner (By Sri Padmanabha R, Advocate) And :
1. The Secretary to Home Dept. Vidhanasoudha Dr.B R Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-01.
2. The Director General of Police Commandant General Home Guards and Director, Civil Defense, No.1, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bangalore-42.
3. The Dy. Commandant General Home Guards and Deputy Director Civil Defense, No.1, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bangalore-42.
4. The District Commandant O/o the District Home Guards Koppal District. ..Respondents (By Sri I Tharanath Poojary, AGA) This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 20.4.2016 passed in Application No.1326 of 2008 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-C and consequently allow the Application No.1326/2008 filed by the petitioner/applicant as prayed for by allowing this writ petition.
This WP coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ group this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER Petitioner was discharged from service on 17.4.2007 under the provisions of Rule 6 of KCS (Probation) Rules, 1977. The order passed by the 3rd respondent discharging the petitioner is self explanatory. He was appointed as watchman in the office of the 4th respondent on 16.7.2003. Pursuant to his appointment, he reported for duty on 28.7.2003 and he was posted to work at the office of the District Home Guards, Koppal District. It is referred that in 3½ years, he availed 75 days of earned leave, 33 days of commuted leave and 75 of LWA. It is further referred that even thereafter, he had not reported for duty since 9.2.2006 till passing of the order of discharge dated 17.4.2007. Under these circumstances, a show cause notice was issued and he replied the same. Having not satisfied, he came to be dismissed/discharged vide order dated 17.4.2007. The order of discharge was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1326/2008, which came to be dismissed by order dated 20th April, 2016, against which, this petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of discharge is stigmatized one. Since show cause notice was issued and the same was replied, no enquiry was conducted. Under the said circumstance, the order of discharge is not under the provisions of Rule 6 of KCS (Probation) Rules, 1977 and it is not confirmed by higher Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that this petition may be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was irregular and unauthorized absentee for about 183 days even during the probation period. The said fact shows that the petitioner was not serious about the duty and committed misconduct during the period of probation, which is not condonable.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
5. The order of discharge dated 17.4.2007 shows that the show cause notice was issued, but no enquiry was conducted. But the fact remains that a person, who approached the Court seeking equitable relief, has not given satisfactory reason for unauthorized absence for a period of 183 days. The petitioner should have some equity in approaching the Court with clean hands. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman. It is not a civil post. However, he had approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal entertained the application of the petitioner and dismissed the same on the ground that there are adequate materials to justify the action by the respondents. The petitioner has availed extraordinary leave for a period of 183 days during the probation period. There are no justifiable grounds to entertain the writ petition.
In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain the petition. Accordingly, petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE Bkm.