- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 11906 OF 2020 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDABASAVA N S/O LATE NANJAIAH, AGED 58 UEARS,. WORKING AS ASSISTANT OFFICER, KARNATAKA SILK MARKETING BOARD LIMITED, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, SILK EXCHANGE BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S B MUKKANAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA SILK MARKETING BOARD LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MYSUGAR BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SILK MARKETING BOARD LIMITED THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSUGAR BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 3. KARNATAKA VALMIKI MAHARSHI SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.10, JASMA BHAVAN ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KARNATAKA GOVT. UNDERTAKING 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH MINI TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT/MISS AZRA J DUNDGE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R ABDUL REYAZ KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) R3 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 ANNEXURE-A. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL BENEFITS INCLUDING BACK WAGES IF ANY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (1) Call for records from the respondents in respect of the impugned order dated 10.09.2020 (Annexure-A); (2) Issue writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 10.09.2020 bearing No.KaReMaaMa/Adalitha/A1/2019-20/165 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) and consequently grant all benefits including back wages, if any, in the interest of justice and equity; (3) Pass any such order, including the costs of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant to respondent No.1-Corporation and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Officer in 2003. The petitioner was deputed to work as General Manager in respondent No.3- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 Corporation from 01.08.2011 to 09.04.2015. Respondent No.3-Corporation repatriated the services of the petitioner to respondent No.1-Corporation. The petitioner was suffering from severe diabetic related diseases and hence, the petitioner sought for leave from 09.04.2015 and has also attached the medical certificates. The leave letter of the petitioner dated 20.05.2015, which was submitted to respondent No.3 was returned vide communication stating that since the services of the petitioner has been repatriated. It is only respondent No.1 who is empowered to take decision on the leave letter of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his leave letter to respondent No.1 in the prescribed format. On recovery of the health of the petitioner, he reported back to the duty in the respondent No.1-Corporation. He was informed through a letter to the Assistant Officer (Administration) that a total of 293 days of leave is available under the quota of casual leave and 80 days of earned leave as on 10.07.2017 to the credit of the petitioner. It is contended that notice along - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 with the articles of charge was served on the petitioner on 09.03.2017. The sole charge against the petitioner is that he has remained unauthorised absent from 09.04.2015 to 30.09.2015. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo. Respondent No.2 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry submitted a report stating that the charges is levelled against petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 issued a second show cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry Officer seeking an explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the second show cause notice stating that the petitioner was suffering from severe diabetic and other ailments. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order terminating the petitioner from service. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of termination, has filed this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 3. The respondents filed the statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Corporation. It is contended that the petitioner never admitted in the hospital as inpatient and never produced any medical records to respondent No.1. The petitioner remained absent for 174 days. As per the C and R Rules of respondent No.1-Board, an employee who remains absent unauthorizedly for more than four months, he shall be terminated from his services. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the show cause notice, who gave untenable reply and thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer after holding due enquiry has submitted a report saying that the charges levelled against the petitioner is proved. Respondent No.2 issued a second show cause notice along with the enquiry officer's report seeking an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 replied to respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in accordance with the C and R Rules of the respondent- Board. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from severe diabetic and other ailments and he could not attend the duty. He submits that the petitioner has sent the leave to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has returned the said leave letter on the ground that the petitioner is working in the respondent No.1-Corporation and respondent No.1-Corporation has to sanction the leave. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and submitted the leave letter. Respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the leave letter submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 compelled not to attend the duty only on the ground of ill- health. He also submits that the order of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges alleged against the petitioner. He also submits that the order of punishment is too harsh. He also submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 27.04.2022. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that the petitioner remained unauthorised absent for 174 days. The unauthorised absence amount to scene of misconduct and as per the C and R rules of the respondent-Board, if the employee remains unauthorised absent for more than 174 days, the order of termination is to be passed. She submits that the order of termination is legal. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working in respondent No.2-Corporation and he was promoted as Assistant Officer and he was sent to respondent No.1-Corporation on deputation. After the term of deputation, he was repatriated vide order dated 09.04.2015 to respondent No.2. On 20.05.2015, the petitioner was suffering from severe diabetic and related diseases. The petitioner sought for leave from 09.04.2015 and also attached the medical records. The leave letter submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.3 was returned vide communication dated 27.05.2015 stating that the services of the petitioner has been repatriated. It is only respondent No.1, who is empowered to take decision on the leave of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said communication dated 27.05.2015, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and submitted a leave letter - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 to respondent No.1-Corporation in the prescribed form. On recovery of the health of the petitioner, the petitioner reported back to the duty in respondent No.1-Corporation. On 01.10.2016, it was informed to the Assistant Officer (Administration) that the total number of 293 days of leave is available under the quota of casual leave and 80 days of earned leave as on 10.07.2017 to the credit of the petitioner. The respondents have issued article of charges, which was served on the petitioner on 09.03.2017. The charges levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner has remained unauthorised absent from 09.04.2015 to 30.09.2015. Though the leave of the said duration was not sanctioned, the petitioner has submitted a reply to the charge memo. Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after recording the evidence of the parties, has submitted a report stating that the charges levelled - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 against the petitioner is proved and recommended for termination from service. The disciplinary authority, after the receipt of enquiry report, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner along with an enquiry report seeking an explanation. The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the petitioner was forced to abstain from the duty on the ground that he was suffering from diabetic and other disease related to it. Respondent No.2-the disciplinary authority without considering that the petitioner had already submitted a leave on 20.05.2015 and the same was returned by respondent No.2 through communication dated 27.05.2015 and pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and submitted a leave letter to respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner could not attend the duty on the medical grounds and he has also enclosed the medical certificates to establish that he was suffering from severe diabetic and other diseases related there to. The respondents without considering the said aspect has - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 proceeded to pass the impugned order of termination. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, has passed the impugned order without looking into the leave letter submitted by the petitioner to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is too harsh and the order of punishment is disproportionate and arbitrary of charges levelled against the petitioner, unless the respondents explicitly prove the absence was wilful or deliberate. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that in case of unauthorized absence, the department is required to establish that the absence of the employer concerned was wilful. The petitioner remained absent, however, as is evident from the perusal of medical records, the same was neither wilful or intended. Moreover, the personal circumstances of the petitioner were the mitigating factors that escaped the respondent kind consideration in as much as it went further to impose the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 has retired from service on obtaining the age of superannuation on 27.04.2022. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is unsustainable, being disproportionate. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. reported in (2012)3 SCC 178 at para Nos.16, 17 and 18 are as follows: “16. The question whether `unauthorised absence from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful. 18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant.” - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 10. Thus, considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR (SUPRA), this Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner has remained absent, the petitioner is entitled for minor penalty. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is modified. iii. The matter is remitted to the respondents authorities with a direction to impose any other penalty, barring dismissal, removal or termination in light of the observation made by this Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv. The grant of consequential benefits shall depend upon the decision to be taken afresh by the respondents. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35985 WP No. 11906 of 2020 v. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB