- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12972 OF 2012 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SHRI. S. GUNASEELAN, S/O LATE A.M.D SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.3155/A, 11TH MAIN, HAL IInd STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR KARNATAKA & CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KASTURI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V VINAY GIRI AND SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATES) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE DISPUTES NUMBERED AS C.R.NO.77/2000 & C.R.NO.11/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore, in Proceedings bearing CR Nos. 77/2000 and No.11/2005 vide Annexures B & C respectively. 3. Certain facts which are noticed from the pleadings and not disputed are as under: Petitioner joined the service under the respondent on 02.02.1965 as Grade-II clerk. From 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and alleging this charge, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 4. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against him and participated in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the materials placed before it, concluded that charges against the petitioner are proved and proposed a penalty of dismissal. 5. The second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority modified the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the order of dismissal. However, it has held that unauthorized absence from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 should be treated as leave without pay. 7. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.954/1990 which was dismissed and thereafter filed W.A.No.1813/1998 and the same was also dismissed. Then the petitioner filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.17259/1999 and the same is also dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 8. This court in the earlier writ petition had held that the petitioner has to raise dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Tribunal again the evidence was led and the Tribunal after considering the material placed before it has rejected the reference. Aggrieved by the aforementioned awards, petitioner is before this court. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no past record of misconduct against the petitioner. Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 on account of unavoidable circumstances. Petitioner's mother expired in the year 1985 and petitioner's sister expired on 03.12.1987 and petitioner being in a difficult position filed application seeking leave and same was not considered and petitioner was under obligation to look after the construction work of his deceased sister and for these valid reasons, he could not attend the duty from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988. 10. It is further submitted that Appellate Authority considering the circumstances under which the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 remained unauthorisedly absent, treated the said unauthorized absence as a special leave without payment and thereby, the misconduct alleged is not established. As such penalty of dismissal from service is unsustainable, is the submission. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and thus would contend that the penalty of dismissal from service has to be set aside and since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner shall be granted all the back wages and other service benefits. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that petitioner's unauthorized absence for 7 1/2 months starting from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 is duly established. Petitioner's application seeking leave was rejected by the competent authority and the said order is not questioned. Despite that, the petitioner has chosen not to attend to duty and remained absent for 7 1/2 months. 13. In addition to that, the first appellate authority has also noticed and petitioner did not attend to the duty while the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 enquiry was going on and this aspect was also noticed by the First Appellate Authority and this unauthorized absence post 16.08.1988 is also not disputed by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority has also taken into account the previous misconduct by the petitioner and the lenient view shown to the petitioner before imposing the penalty, on earlier occasion. 14. It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view by treating the 7 1/2 months unauthorized absence as leave without pay and the said lenient view taken by the Appellate Authority cannot be construed as a finding in favour of the petitioner insofar as alleged misconduct is concerned. It is submitted that penalty of dismissal is imposed after holding that the alleged misconduct is established. 15. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention that for such a long period of unauthorized absence, the penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate, would rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Maan Singh Vs. Union of India and others [(2003) 3 SCC 464] and also Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog [(2009)9 SCC 462]. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by way of alternate submission reply would submit that order of dismissal from service is to be modified as compulsory retirement and the petitioner should be granted the benefit available under the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990(for short 'The Regulation, 1990'). Referring to the said Regulation, it is urged that under Regulation 3(3) of the Regulation, 1990, the employee who has retired from service between 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1990 is also entitled to pension and since the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of the impugned order, the petitioner could not exercise the option available under the Regulation, 1990. Thus, he would alternatively contend that petitioner should be treated as compulsorily retired from service and the benefits flowing from the Regulation, 1990 shall be granted to the petitioner. 17. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 18. The finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 is supported by the materials on record. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 Appellate Authority has also taken note of this aspect so also the Tribunal. Even going by the defence raised by the petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner did not attend to duty from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 and he tried to justify his absence on the premise that he was occupied with the construction of house of his deceased sister. 19. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was indisposed or was not capable of attending to the duty. The petitioner raised a contention that his mother died in year 1985 and his sister died in the month of December 1987 and he was in a depressed state of mind. On the other hand, his further contention is that he was taking up the responsibility of construction of the house for his sister clearly suggest that he was not in the depressed state of mind and he was capable of attending to the duty. It is further noticed that application seeking leave was rejected by the employer and same is not questioned. This being the position, the finding of unauthorized absence from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 is duly established. 20. It is further noticed that the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. On an appeal filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view by taking unauthorized absence from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 as a special leave without any payment. This in fact has ensured the continuity of service for the petitioner for claiming gratuity and other service benefits. While modifying the penalty, first Appellate Authority has also taken into note of the fact that petitioner was found guilty in the previous proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 21. In addition to that, it is also the noticed by the Appellate Authority that petitioner remained unauthorisely absent for 1 1/2 years after 16.08.1988 when the enquiry was going on. Though an observation is made relating to his authorized absence for 1 1/2 years, enquiry is not initiated against the petitioner. Though enquiry was not initiated, this Court cannot hold that further unauthorized absence is the basis for the penalty imposed. The penalty imposed is on the basis of proven misconduct of unauthorized absence commencing from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988. Despite noticing unauthiorised absence for 7 1/2 months and thereafter during the course of enquiry, the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view to ensure that continuity of service is maintained and the petitioner gets certain benefits. The said benefit - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 conferred on the petitioner and the leniency cannot be construed as a finding of no guilt against the petitioner. 22. As far as the submission with reference to Regulation, 1990 is concerned, it is noticed that pension rules came into existence in the year 1990 and the employees who had retired between 1st January 1986 and 1st November 1990 were given an option of opting for the benefit under the Pension Regulation, 1990 subject to employees refunding employer's the contribution along with the interest to be paid till the date of refund. 23. Admittedly, the petitioner has not opted under the said scheme. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was dismissed in the year 1989 and he was not in employment in the year 1990 when the Regulation came into force and therefore he was not in a position to opt for the benefit under the Regulation, 1990, it is required to be noticed that the respondent-bank cannot be held responsible for the petitioner not opting for the benefit under the Regulation, 1990, as his termination was justified. 24. The respondent-bank had exercised its power to terminate the service of the petitioner on account of proven - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 misconduct pursuant to disciplinary enquiry. This being the position, the petitioner cannot urge to contend that the penalty of dismissal from service is to be reduced to compulsory retirement and the benefit is payable to petitioner under the Regulation, 1990. 25. It is relevant to note that though there is an observation in the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent during enquiry, the said observation is not questioned before the Tribunal by raising a ground that the observation is made without holding any enquiry. In fact, even before this Court, no material is placed to show that despite the petitioner was intending to resume the work and respondent did not allow the petitioner to resume the work. This being the position, this Court is of the view that petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. 26. Even as per ratio laid down by the Apex court in the decisions of Regional Manger, Bank of Baroda and Maan Singh (supra), the Courts have held that in case of unauthorized absence for a long period, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the employer cannot be interfered with. It is well settled question of law that in the matter of penalty imposed by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 the employer, the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere unless it is demonstrated that penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 27. This Court has also perused the judgment in Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran in SLP (Civil) No.23631/2008. In the said case also, the Apex Court has held that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority could not have been interfered by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. This judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. 28. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the respondent-employer and the award passed by the Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 29. However, it is submitted that the service benefits payable to the petitioner are not yet released in favour of the petitioner and it is still detained by the respondent-bank. The respondent- bank shall release the service benefits payable to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20740 WP No. 12972 of 2012 the petitioner along with interest accrued on it within 30 days from today. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK