Karnataka HC upholds removal of HAL engineer for unauthorised absence

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the removal from service of an Engineer in the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit bench termed unauthorised absence from duty for close to eight months as ‘reasonably serious misconduct’.

The HAL management had moved the appeal before the division bench challenging the November 23, 2023 order passed by a single bench. One AK Sinha, who was serving as an engineer in the design department, had remained unauthorisedly absent for 107 days, from September 22, 2016, till January 6, 2017. He was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry and Rs 2,22,757 was demanded from him for flouting the service contract.

On his application, the appellate authority modified the punishment to simple removal from service, instead of dismissal. In the challenge before the high court, the single bench had set aside the removal from service and also directed for return Rs 2,22,757.

In its appeal, the HAL contended that apart from the fact that the absence was unauthorised, the medical certificates subsequently produced to support his leave were not believable and were misleading. The management further stated that the employee remained absent till the order of punishment passed against him. On the other hand, the employee claimed that he was suffering from severe back pain and this ailment prevented him from attending duty.

The bench noted that the total unauthorised absence was of up to eight long months and that the punishment of dismissal was modified in the departmental appeal. “The initial punishment of dismissal was converted by the appellate authority into simple removal which would not be a disqualification for the petitioner in future government employment,” the bench said.

The court further said, “The bed-rest was recommended for three months only which too was done at the request of the delinquent and not on account of any medical exigency. It was, therefore, a conclusion to be rightly drawn, as drawn by the inquiry officer that a continued absence on part of the delinquent was not based on any medical condition and the medical ground was in a way an excuse put forth not to come on duty.”

Insofar as the money recovered for flouting the service contract, the division bench was of the view that it was harsh on the employee and thus sustained the order passed by the single bench.