T.S. Chandramouly vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order dated 14th July, 2001 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No. 5618/2009 is called in question in this writ petition.

The records reveal that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Civil Police Constable on 4.9.1996 in Hassan and he reported to duty on 30.9.1996. He completed the training on 25.10.1997. After completion of the training, his services were confirmed as Civil Police Constable (for short hereinafter referred to as the ''CPC'') during April, 1999. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, KSRP ((for short hereinafter referred to as ''RSI'') in respect to the notification dated 18.10.2007 as an in-service candidate and he was selected as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police as per the order dated 3.12.2008 and was relieved from Civil Police Constable with effect from 26.1.2009. The petitioner reported for training to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police before the Deputy I.G.P. and Principal, Police Training College, Naganahalli, Gulbarga on 29.1.2009. However, he remained absent for more than 150 days during the course of training and during the course of probationary period. After issuing notice to him, the order of penalty came to be issued against him as per Annexure-A dated 28.7.2009 which was confirmed by the higher officers as per Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. The order of discharge was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 5618/2009 which came to be dismissed. Consequently, the order of discharge came to be confirmed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

The learned advocate for the petitioner taking us through the material on record submits that the petitioner was taking treatment for his serious ailment for about 150 days continuously at Gulbarga as well as in Arasikere and therefore, he could not attend the training course and that the absence of the petitioner from duty is un-intentional and because of medical grounds; though the Department had invoked the provisions of paragraph/Order No. 525 of the Karnataka Police Manual to conduct inquiry against the petitioner; they did not do so but on the contrary, the Department has proceeded to discharge the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977.

The learned Government advocate argued in support of the judgment of the Tribunal below.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained absent for more than 150 days continuously while he was undergoing probationary period. The only reason assigned by the petitioner is that he was unwell and he was suffering from the sprain of anklets, etc., and in that regard, he had taken treatment at Gulbarga and Arasikere. The facts were gone into in depth by the Administrative Tribunal while passing the impugned order. In paragraphs 5.3 of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal on facts has concluded that the petitioner had not taken permission of the Department while deserting his work; the medical slip dated 14.2.2009 issued by the Government Hospital, Gulbarga, reveals that the petitioner was suffering from sprain and hence, he was advised to stop physical training for 10 days. Merely because the doctor had advised the petitioner to stop physical training for a period of 10 days, the petitioner should not have left the place of training and gone to his native place without informing the concerned authorities. He would have as well requested the concerned authorities to provide him training on some other factors for about 10 days, but on the contrary, the petitioner has left the place of training at Gulbarga and went to his native place without even submitting an application for leave. For the first time, the petitioner sent leave application on 15.5.2009 praying for commuted leave for a period from 16.2.2009 to 14.5.2009 (87 days) which was received by the Police Training College on 1.6.2009. The out-patient slip submitted by the petitioner which was issued by Sri Jayachamarajendra Government Hospital, Arasikere mentions about the treatment on 16.2.2009, 19.2.2009, 25.2.2009, 18.3.2009, 20.3.2009, 30.3.2009, 25.4.2009 and 10.5.2009. There is nothing record to show that the petitioner was in-patient. He has taken treatment as out-patient. In that regard, the Tribunal has rightly observed that it creates doubt as to whether the sprain requires prolonged treatment of 87 days continuously. Though in the application, the petitioner has stated that one Dr. K.P. Hebbar, Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon has given a certificate dated 1.6.2009 stating that during the period from 16.2.2009 to 31.5.2009 (105 days), the applicant was unsuitable for working and fit for duty from 1.6.2009, but such a certificate dated 1.6.2009 is not found in the records of the Police Training College. Be that as it may.

As mentioned supra in paragraph-5.3 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has in detail observed as to how the arguments of the petitioner seeking leniency cannot be accepted. Such a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

It is no doubt true that at one point of time, the petitioner was issued with the desertion notice dated 18/20th March, 2009 vide Annexure-A10 under which the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Principal, Police Training College, Naganahalli, Gulbarga informed the petitioner that an enquiry will be conducted in case he does not appear for duty immediately after the receipt of their notice. Despite issuing such a notice, the petitioner did not appear for the training. Merely because such notice was issued as per paragraph/Order No. 525 of the Karnataka Police Manual informing the petitioner that an enquiry will be conducted against him, the same will not give any right to the petitioner for being enquired. The enquiry will come into picture only after confirmation of the petitioner/employee in employment.

Here is a case wherein the petitioner was still undergoing probationary period. During the course of probation itself, the petitioner absented from duty for 150 days unauthorisedly. Admittedly, he did not take permission of the higher officers to absent himself from duties. If it is so, the Department is justified in proceeding against him under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. Rule 6 of the said Rules reads thus:

"6. Discharge of a probationer during the period of probation.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in rule 5, the appointing authority may, at any time during the period of probation, discharge from service a probationer on grounds arising out of the conditions, if any, imposed by the rules or in the order of appointment, or an account of his unsuitability for the service of post; but the order of discharge except when passed by the Government shall not be given effect to till it has been submitted to and confirmed by the next higher authority. (2) An order discharging a probationer under this rule shall indicate the grounds for the discharge but no formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall be necessary".

It is amply clear from the said rule that the appointing authority may, at any time during the period of probation, discharge from service a probationer on grounds arising out of the conditions, if any, imposed by the rules or in the order of appointment, or an account of his unsuitability for the service of post; but the order of discharge of probationer except when passed by the Government shall not be given effect to till it has been submitted to and confirmed by the next higher authority. An order discharging a probationer under Rule 6 shall indicate the grounds for the discharge but no formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall be necessary. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that his services be continued by the Department since he had not been confirmed in the service.

In view of the above, as the impugned order is just and proper, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.