In-Subordination Is Contagious Malady In Public Service Resulting In Maladministration, Cannot Be Viewed Leniently: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed with cost a petition filed by a delinquent employee of the State Administrative Tribunal, questioning the order passed by the Tribunal whereby his two annual increments with cumulative effect were withheld on charges of disobeying instruction of the Chairman, and employing rude language.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by S Purushothama and said, “In-subordination is a contagious malady in any employment and more particularly in public service. It spreads in an exponential way affecting the hierarchy of positions and disbanding the chain of command, which eventually result in maladministration. Therefore, it cannot be viewed leniently at all.”

The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the Petitioner, which is to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks.

The petitioner had contended that the Tribunal failed to see that he could not have been deployed to its Belagavi Bench. He argued that the Chairman had no such power; no vacancy in the post to which he was deployed was available.

The bench referred to section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which vests in the Chairman the power of general superintendence over the employees.

Under the 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.

Thus, the bench said, “He (Chairman) 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.”

Court said the Petitioner admittedly did not obey the deployment order and thus, he committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty.

Noting that 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, Court said “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.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner about invalidity of suspension order, the court said, “Grave charges having been framed, more particularly when the petitioner chose to remain at Bengaluru Bench disobeying the deployment order to Belagavi Bench; further, he arrogated to himself the authority to mark his attendance at Bengaluru even after he was relieved. It is always open to an employer to keep his employee under suspension in the absence of rules to the contrary.”

It added, “Looking to the three charges framed against the petitioner later, it cannot be contended that suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry could not have been effected. Eventually, enquiry was accomplished resulting into levy of punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the Tribunal is more than justified in denying relief to the petitioner both in the Application and in the Review Application.”

Finally, the Court refused to accede to the submission of the petitioner that his family comprising of wife and two college going children required his presence at Bengaluru. It observed “It is common that everyone will have a family to attend to. Any deployment of the kind would cause some difficulty to the employee is also true; however, that is an inevitable consequence of public employment.”

Appearance: S Purushothama., party in person

Advocate Raghavendra G Gayathri, for R1 & R2.

AGA Saritha Kulkarni., for R3

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 486

Case Title: S Purushothama AND The Chairman & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26318 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order