SHASHIKANTH N KINNARKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, petitioner is assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 22-2-2001. of the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-U and the impugned order dated 5-6-2006. of the 1st respondent vide annexure-Y as the same are illegal, bad in law, arbitrary one. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty as Peon with all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, service benefits, monetary benefits and all other benefits flowing therefrom.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, petitioner was working as Peon at Town Municipal Council, Dandeli and he has been transferred to Special tahsildar/secretary, Land Tribunal III Hangal, on 31-8-1981. Accordingly he has reported for duty at transferred place and he has taken leave to make arrangement to bring his family to the transferred place on 2-9-1981. After completion of leave when he has gone to the office of the Special Tahsildar for reporting duty, he has been informed that the Land tribunal III Hangal has been abolished and he has not been permitted to report for duty. Thereafter, he has submitted his representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 29-10-1984 requesting to give posting as the office, to which he has been transferred has been abolished. But his request is neither considered nor has taken any steps by the respondents by giving him posting to some other place. Be that as it may. The Government has issued the Official memorandum dated 31-1-1989 issuing direction to all the Heads of departments that any Government servant who comes back to service after any period of unauthorised absence, he should be taken to duty. In the light of the official memorandum dated 31-1-1989, the 2nd respondent has sent a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, karwar on 30-3-1991 requesting him to furnish the details regarding the availability of vacancy at City Municipal Council, dandeli for giving posting to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 25-5-1992, 2nd respondent has transferred the petitioner to a vacant post of city Municipal Council, Dandeli. Instead of giving posting, the Chief Executive Officer, city Municipal Council, Dandeli has sent a communication to the Deputy Commissioner on 19-10-1992 seeking clarification regarding taking the petitioner on duty. The Commissioner City Municipal Council, Dandeli has sent another communication to the Deputy commissioner, Karwar on 14-5-1993, who in turn has sent communication to the 2nd respondent on 23-7-1993. When his request has not been considered and he has not been given any posting in spite of the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the 2nd respondent to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dandeli, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before the competent authority. In spite of making several correspondences by the office of the 2nd respondent and the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, petitioner has not been provided any job or issued any posting order. Instead of that, they have initiated the proceedings and dismissed the petitioner from service on 22-2-2001, on the ground that petitioner was not on duty from 1981 to 1984 without verifying the factual aspects of the matter and without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 22-2-2001 petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, who in turn, without conducting proper enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, has proceeded to pass the order unilaterally, on 5-6-2006 by confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Having regard to these backgrounds, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, by presenting this writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government advocate for respondents 1 and 2.