G. RAMASWAMY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 23-7-2013 whereby the respondent No1. has imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect, and have directed to treat the suspended period as leave to the credit of the petitioner, and if leave is not available, then to treat the suspension period as leave without allowance. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23-5-2014 passed by the respondent No.2, the Managing Director & Appellate Authority, Karnataka Electricity Supply Company Limited, whereby the Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty order dated 23-7-2013.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent organisation as Assistant Engineer in 1991. On 31-7-2012, while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in ALDC Branch, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, "the HESCOM"), at Hubli, suddenly, he had a toothache. Therefore, he had applied for casual leave. He contacted his Doctor in Mysore, who asked him to report to Mysore for his check-up. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a leave application through fax. However, during the period of absence, by order dated 29-9-2012, the petitioner was suspended from service. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that he had been absent unauthorisedly for almost two months. According to the charges, he had left on casual leave on 30-7-2012. Subsequently, on 31-7-2012, he had submitted a leave application through fax requesting for leave on medical grounds from 1-8-2012 to 31-8-2012. Since he has not gotten the leave sanctioned from the Competent Authority before going on leave, and before handing over the charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had violated the procedure as per Regulations 106 to 120 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1996. After holding a thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner replied to the same. But by order dated 23-7-2013, the Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, he filed a Departmental Appeal. However, by order dated 23-5-2014, the Departmental Appeal has been dismissed, and penalty order has been confirmed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. M. Sivappa, learned Senior Counsel, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, there were valid reasons for absence of two months as the petitioner was suffering from medical difficulties. Even prior to leaving the Office, he had informed his superior Officer that he is suffering from toothache, and that he needs to go to Mysore for his medical check up.