The Karnataka High Court while refusing to quash Tribunal's order withholding delinquent employee's two annual increments with cumulative effect for disobeying Chairman's instructions and indulging in spat observed that in-subordination is a contagious malady that eventually leads to misadministration.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition against Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing application calling in question the suspension order and also the punishment order, whereby two annual increments of the Petitioner with cumulative effect were withheld.

The division-bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi observed, "In-subordination is a contagious malady in any employment and more particularly in public service. It spreads in exponential way affecting the hierarchy of positions and disbanding the chain of command, which eventually result into maladministration. Therefore, it cannot be viewed leniently at all."

The Petitioner, S. Purushothama appeared in-person while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Shri Raghavendra G. Gayathari.

The Tribunal failed to see that he could not have been deployed to its Belagavi Bench; the Chairman of the Tribunal has no such power; the deployment order does not assure payment of TA & DA; no vacancy in the post to which he was deployed was available.

Three charges were framed against the petitioner, first related to petitioner not reporting for duty at Belagavi Bench and that amounted to disobedience; the second related to petitioner signing the Attendance Register maintained at the Principal Bench, the third charge related to disobedience of instruction of the Chairman of the Tribunal and employing rude language, which together constitute in-subordination & indiscipline. A disciplinary enquiry was held and he has been awarded a major punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The Court was not impressed with submission of the petitioner that an employee appointed to the Bangalore Bench cannot be deployed to other Benches of the Tribunal away from Bangalore.

"Firstly, section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 vests in the Chairman of the Tribunal the power of general superintendence over the employees. Secondly, under Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Conditions of Service, etc) Rules, 1992, the Chairman happens to be the Appointing Authority vide Rule 3 and the Disciplinary Authority vide Rule 6. Thirdly, the position of the Chairman is pivotal in the administration of affairs of the Tribunal. In a sense, he functions as ‘the Conscience Keeper of the Tribunal’. Nothing that affects his chain of command & control can be tolerated, to say the least. It is the duty of all employees & staff to scrupulously obey his administrative orders/instructions. The power of superintendence vested in the Chairman is wide and its scope is co-extensive with the requirement of the occasion. The absence of Rules in that regard, is no justification whatsoever for disobeying the deployment orders, be it transfer or deputation or otherwise. Petitioner admittedly did not obey the deployment order and thus, he committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty," the court observed.

The Court was of the view that the Petitioner’s contention that the deployment order ought to have assured him the payment of TA & DA, when he was supposed to work at Belagavi Bench, is only a ruse to avoid duty he was enjoined with.

"All deputed employees are being paid TA & DA in accordance with the extant Rules/Circulars. Petitioner himself admits before us that when he was deputed to Kalaburagi Bench for a few days way back in 2020, he was paid admissible TA & DA. That being the position, contention of the kind is liable to be rejected for want of bonafide, in addition to being legally untenable," the court observed.

The Court also rejected the grievance that TA & DA is being paid on a progressively diminishing scale as 'unsustainable'.

"What is payable is decided by the extant norms and they are applicable to all the employees who are sent on deputation. Added, the subject deployment/deputation was for a short period of three months. It is only the petitioner who has been raising unjustifiable grievance, when all others have scrupulously followed the pattern," the court observed.

With regard to the 'jurisdiction' issue, the court observe, "Ordinarily, it is the prerogative of the employer to deploy his staff suitable to the requirement of work/place unless the conditions of service otherwise provide. No such condition is notified to us. In the preceding paragraph, we have already held that the Chairman has competence to issue directions of the kind. As long as such deployment orders remain on record, so long they will have ostensible validity vide STATE OF PUNJAB vs. GURUDEV SINGH."

"An employee cannot sit in self-judgment as to the validity of instruction of the employer and disobey the same with impunity. An argument to the contrary would affect the interest of public administration and eventually, the public interest, as well," the Court observed.

The Court agreed with the submission of the Panel Counsel that the petitioner has been found guilty of the misconduct in a properly constituted disciplinary enquiry as to the charge of disobeying Chairman’s instruction to see him and of using rude language, is supported by the evidentiary material which the disciplinary authority has acted upon after taking the enquiry report and that too, after giving an opportunity of representation to the petitioner.

The Court accordingly dismissed the Petition with ₹10,000/- cost.

Cause Title: S. Purushothama vs. The Chairman, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

Appearances:

Petitioner- S. Purushothama (In-person)

Respondent- Advocate Shri Raghavendra G. Gayathari, AGA Saritha Kulkarni

Click here to read/ download Judgement:







Karnataka High CourtAdministrationAdministrative Law

Sheetal Joon