H S CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitoiner was a conductor in the Karnataka, State Road Transport Corporation ("hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He applied for leave from 1-9-1968 to 30-9-1968 on medical grounds. After the leave was sanctioned, the petitioner went to his native place. According to the petitioner he was ill even beyond 30-9-1968 and he was under the treatment of an Allopathic Doctor in his native place for chest pain. After he recovered from the illness, he submitted a leave application on 21-9-1970 along with a medical certificate requesting the Deputy General Manager, Hassan, who was the competent authority to sanction leave for the period during which he was absent and to take him on duty. The Dy. General Manager declined to do so on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Corporation in view of Rule 6 of Part III of the KSRTC Empployees Leave Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). An appeal filed before the General Manager against the order of the Dy. Genl. Manager was not successful. Hence this writ petition. It was argued by Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the fact that no enquiry had been held by the Corporation to determine wheher the petitioner had ceased to be in the service of the Corporation the order passed by the Dy. Genl. Manager and the Genl. Manager were liable to be quashed and the Corporation should be directed to hold an enquiry to decide the said question. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Narandas Barot v. J. D. Rathod, AIR 1966 SC 1364.

(2.) In that case also there- was a regulation which provided that irregular attendance, absence without leave and without reasonable cause and failure without sufficient cause to report when directed fox duty amounted to acts of misconduct which entailed the punishment of discharge or removal from service. The Supreme Court was Of the view that it was obligatory on the part of the transport authority to hold an enquiry into the alleged act of misconduct before taking a decision on the question whether the workman should be discharged or removed from service.

(3.) Rule 6 of Part III of the Rules reads as follows :