- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 21396 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SRI.DIKSHITH N.R, S/O SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, EX-GDS MD, SHIVAMOGGA S.A. RAILWAY STATION SO, SHANTINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. R/AT OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR CHINMAYA MISSION, SAI SHUBHMANGALA, LAKSHMI HAYAVADANA, R. MAHARAJ ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. 4. THE ASST. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, SHIVAMOGGA EAST SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00422/2024 DATED 04/03/2025 IN ANNEXURE-"C" AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE RULES AND ETC.. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) Unsuccessful applicant is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 in Application No.O.A.170/00422/2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru ['Tribunal' for short], dismissing the application and declining to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the competent authority. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief factual matrix involving in the lis are as under: 4. The applicant was initially appointed as GDSMD at Shivamogga Head Office, with effect from 12.05.2009, vide order dated 09.02.2010. While he was working with fourth respondent, he was absent from duty with effect from 10.02.2020 till the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 memorandum dated 07.04.2021, issued proposing to hold enquiry against the applicant on Articles of Charge of absenteeism. 5. During the enquiry on 13.08.2021, the applicant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and filed statement vide Annexure-A5, admitting the Articles of Charge voluntarily without any duress and requested to conclude the inquiry. On the admission by way of statement, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 08.10.2021, holding that the charge levelled against the applicant has been proved and forwarded the same to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority upon receipt of the report issued an order of penalty of removal of the applicant from service vide order dated 30.10.2021. 6. Aggrieved by the order of penalty of removal from service, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected and a revision petition filed against the said order tasted rejection. Aggrieved by the order of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 penalty and the order on appeal and revision, the applicant was before the Tribunal in application O.A.No.422/2024. 7. The contention urged by the applicant before the Tribunal are two folded: (i) Firstly, in the statement of imputations to the charge, it is shown that the applicant remained absent to duty from 10.02.2020 to 07.04.2021 unauthorisedly. This charge is vague, since no specific date is mentioned as to what date the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. The authorities have lost sight of the fact that National lock down was declared during 2020 in view of COVID-19 pandemic. (ii) Secondly, both Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have failed to consider whether the absence is wilful? 8. To buttress his arguments, the applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another in Civil Appeal No.2106/2012 (DD:15.02.2012) and Union of India and Another Vs. R.K.Sharma in Civil Appeal No.4059/2015 (DD:30.06.2022). 9. Upon notice the respondent/Union of India appeared through its counsel and filed its objections, justifying the order of penalty and order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority. It was contented by the respondents before the Tribunal that the charge memo is very specific, as absenteeism mentioned from 10.02.2020 till date. Since the Articles of Charge issued on 07.04.2021, till date connotes the said date, as such the word used "till date" has to be read as "date of charge memo". 10. That apart applicant proceeded on unauthorised absence without submitting any application as contemplated under Rule 10B of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement), - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 Rules, 2020. The applicant submitted his representation on 01.07.2021 and requested the authorities to allow him to rejoin the duty. Considering his request, the authorities allowed him to join the duty. However, a little late, again he remained absent from duty i.e., from 08.07.2021. 11. In the enquiry the applicant filed his written statement admitting the charges levelled against him voluntarily without any duress and requested to close the enquiry. On the admission, the Enquiry Officer concluded his enquiry and submitted the report as charge levelled against the applicant on absenteeism is proved. 12. Pursuant to the submission of enquiry report, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit his representation forwarding copy of the enquiry report to the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation in answer to the enquiry report again admitting the charges and requested for a pardon. Thereafter, the order of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 imposing the penalty of "Removal from engagement" with immediate effect came to be passed. The applicant has not chosen to file an appeal, calling in question the order of the Disciplinary Authority within the time prescribed under the Rules. However, he presented an appeal before the Appellate Authority belatedly on 08.11.2023. In the meanwhile, the vacancy of Dak Sevak post was filled in GDS Cycle-V Schedule-1 in January, 2023, that is, on 01.07.2023. The Appellate Authority after going through the entire material placed before it, rejected the appeal, considering the unauthorised absence as inconsequential misconduct. 13. The revision petition filed also came to be rejected, as no grounds made out. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgments relied on by the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, in view of admission by the applicant before the Enquiry Officer as well as in the representation submitted to the Disciplinary - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 Authority, subsequent to the second show cause notice on enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority. 14. It is further submitted by the respondent/Union of India that the applicant proceeded on unauthorised absence from duty on 10.02.2020, which is much before the pandemic lockdown in India, that is from 24.03.2020. A Notice dated 04.03.2020 was addressed to him through registered post, directing him to join duty. Despite service of notice, the applicant has not reported to the duty. This clearly shows that the applicant has no interest to continue in the service. That apart, the applicant has a history of absenteeism since the date of his appointment. Since both the Appellate Authority as well as Revision Authority considering the entire materials rightly confirmed the penalty order which does not call for any interference at the hands of Tribunal and accordingly, sought to dismiss the application. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 15. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusing the entire material on record, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the applicant was on unauthorised absence not only for the first time from 10.02.2020 to 07.04.2021, but the history of the case shows that he has a recorded history of absenteeism on several occasion, since the date of his appointment. The Tribunal while reasoning its order that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order in appeal and revision are found on the principles of law applicable to service jurisprudence, held that the judgment relied on by the applicant are distinguishable on the facts of the case, as in the case on hand there is admission of charge not only during the enquiry but also by way of representation to the intimation given to submit his representation on the enquiry report. 16. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the contention of wilful absence has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal is of no consequence, as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 there is admission of charge by the applicant. Having held so, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and Revision Authority are within the four corners of law. 17. The Tribunal assigned one more reason stating that, the postal department being an essential service rendering department, callousness and procrastination on the part of the applicant has affected the public service at large. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, confirming the order of penalty passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revision Authority. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, called in question before this Court in this petition. 18. Heard Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.Pramod, learned Central Government Standing counsel for respondents and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 19. Sri. Nanja Reddy, reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal tries to impress upon us that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the charge levelled. Mere absence without an element of wilfulness cannot be termed as misconduct, in these circumstances the penalty imposed is excessively disproportionate, the same be considered and the penalty imposed be set aside/ modified. 20. Having considered the submissions, in the teeth of admission, by the appellant before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority by way of representation subsequent to the receipt of notice on enquiry report, accepting the charge levelled against him, we fail to understand the arguments submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Tribunal having considered the entire material placed before it rightly come to a conclusion, holding that the long absenteeism as well as the earlier history of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50851-DB WP No. 21396 of 2025 absenteeism is detrimental to the postal department which is service oriented. 21. In these circumstances, we find no merits in the petition which calls for any interference at our hands with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly the petition fails and is rejected. RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 ct-vn Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE