- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI PENCHALAIAH 61 YEARS, S/O LATE N NARASIMHAIAH, D GROUP EMPLOYEE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PERMANENT R/O USHA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, GAYATRI BADAVANE, RAMAMURTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560016 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEP OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, LAKSHMIPUR, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560008. 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA - 562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2022 IN APPLICATION No. 2627/2019. 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:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who was in service as a 'Compounder' attached to Ramnagara District Hospital, Ramanagara and is dismissed from service on 22.03.2017 has unsuccessfully called in question such decision in his application in No.2627/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. 2. The petitioner, because his application before the Tribunal was belated, has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, on examination of the grounds set forth and the law on the sufficient cause that must be shown for condonation of delay, has opined that the petitioner has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay [385 days] and consequently both the applications for condonation of delay and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 the application as against the decision of dismissal dated 22.03.2017 are dismissed. 3. A concise statement of the facts are that the petitioner, even according to his pleadings, 'had to leave for his native place in Shivamogga' in the year 2016 because his parents were aged and ill and he had to take care of his family business which was being run by his parents. The petitioner submits that his parents' health and family business in Shivamogga was so critical that it demanded more time and attention, and as such, he had to stay back for longer than the anticipated period. The petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent from service from 01.08.2016. The third respondent, acting on administrative instructions to take action against those who have remained unauthorisedly absent, has, according to the pleadings taken measures to locate the petitioner and have also issued notice in a News daily calling upon the petitioner to report to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 duty to avoid consequences. It is after this process that the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 is issued. The petitioner asserts that he reported to duty on some day in the month of December 2018 and that is when he learnt that he was dismissed from service. If the petitioner does states that he learnt about the decision to dismiss him from service in December 2018, he approaches the Tribunal on 12.04.2019, enclosing medical certificates which are undisputedly dated post the date of his dismissal. 4. The cause offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay, canvassing that such cause would be sufficient in law are that his parents were initially ill and in the month of April 2017, his wife had to be hospitalised. It remains beyond dispute that unauthorised absence would be a malice and if there is to be any condonation of delay, the person seeking condonation of delay must show cause that would be sufficient in law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 5. The petitioner's dismissal order is dated 22.03.2017, and the petitioner without disclosing as to when he reported to duty, except for stating that it is in the month of December 2018, has approached the Tribunal four months later, relying upon those documents which does not explain reasonably the failure to initiate action for a period of almost two years. This Court, therefore, does not find that the Tribunal has erred in opining that the delay is not sufficiently explained and in observing that the petitioner, who had abandoned his employment, prioritising family business, is now seeking resurrection of a career that has culminated. 6. This Court, is therefore, not persuaded by the reasons canvassed by Smt Suma Kedilaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this Court must consider the question of delay in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without an inquiry and that consequent to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44790-DB WP No. 5794 of 2024 such dismissal, the petitioner stands to lose the benefit of service between 01.07.1981 and 01.08.2016 for the purposes of post service benefits. As such, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-