G RAMASWAMY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8198/2015 (S-DIS).

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the appellant was working as the Executive Engineer in ALDC Branch, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (for short 'The HESCOM') at Hubli. The appellant had applied for casual leave as he was suffering from toothache, therefore, he had gone to Mysore for taking treatment. The appellant had sent leave application through fax. During the period of absence, the appellant was suspended from service by an order dated 29.09.2012. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed on the allegations of unauthorized absence for two months and for violation of the procedure as per Regulations 106 to 120 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1996. After enquiry, the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, subsequently, a show cause notice was issued. The appellant replied to the said notice, but the respondent No.1 Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dated 23.07.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred department appeal, but it was dismissed and the penalty order was confirmed. Hence, the appellant had challenged the said order in W.P. No.8198/2015 (S-DIS). On hearing the parties, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come up in appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 is not in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellate authority has not appreciated the explanation offered by the appellant and the records submitted in support of his absence from duty due to medical reasons. The appellant was not given adequate opportunity and the order was passed by the appellate authority in a mechanical way confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Imposing punishment without holding enquiry is contrary to the service regulation of the respondent authority. The entire approach of the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority is contrary to the records and principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the ground that the appellant ought to have examined the official superiors, which is not the case before the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant has tried to compare his case with that of one Mr. V.S.K. Rangan, which is not proper and correct. The conclusion drawn is erroneous. The disciplinary authority and appellate authority have failed to consider the grounds urged by the appellant for his absence, but the same was not considered by the learned Single Judge. As such, the impugned order calls for interference.