SOMASUNDARA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-10-9
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on October 04,1966

SOMASUNDARA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Somnath Ayyar, J. - (1.)The petitioner who was a junior assistant in the Traffic section of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was served with a communication dated 28 April 1965 by the Deputy General Manager in which it was stated that his services were terminated with effect from 6 March 1965 "as per provisions of the standing orders." The Deputy General Manager gave no reason for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated. He did not specify the particular standing order under which services were liable to be terminated. It is however clear from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18/19 March 1965 that there was an allegation of misconduct which fell under Sub-clause (8) of Clause IX(b) of the standing orders, and according to that clause it would be misconduct on the part of an employee if he was absent without leave or habitually overstayed without obtaining leave.
(2.)But the Deputy General Manager did not say in the course of his order that the petitioner habitually overstayed without leave or that he habitually absented himself without leave. The complaint made by the petitioner in the appeal which he preferred to the appellate authority was that no enquiry was made into the charge brought against the petitioner. But the General Manager who was appellate authority took the view that the charge of habitual absence and habitual overstayal was "evident from the records in the office and no detailed enquiry was necessary." He also came to the conclusion that there was no need to appoint an enquiry officer or to order a regular enquiry.
(3.)It must also be observed that the order made by the General Manager does not conform to the requirements of an appellate order which although there is no specific prescription in regard to what it should contain, be self-contained, indicating the nature of the charge, the evidence which supports it and the like. The General Manager should have discussed whether the evidence no record established the charge and whether the punishment imposed was in the circumstances commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. None of these things was done by the General Manager.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.