Karnataka HC Upholds Reinstatement Of Teacher Dismissed After 3½-Year Absence Without Being Served A Charge Sheet

The respondent, a permanent Assistant Teacher, was absent from duty for approximately three and a half years.

The State initiated disciplinary action and dismissed her, but the charge sheet was not served on her; the disciplinary proceedings also proceeded without an inquiry.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed her application, set aside the dismissal, directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, and left the authorities at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

The State challenged that order before the High Court.

Under Rule 28-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, orders and notices must be served personally or by registered post; where the prescribed alternative method is invoked, Rule 28-A(2) requires publication in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State.

In Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, (1998) 7 SCC 569, the Supreme Court held that actual service of a charge sheet or show-cause notice is essential and that failure to serve it vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

The principle in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 422, is that where the law prescribes a manner for performing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

Disciplinary action must also comply with natural justice.

The High Court treated non-service of the charge sheet as an admitted fact and held that the respondent’s permanent employment could not be terminated except in accordance with the governing disciplinary rules.

The Tribunal had found that the notice was not served personally or by post and that publication in only one newspaper did not satisfy Rule 28-A(2); it also noted the absence of an inquiry and evidence to establish the charges.

Applying the requirement of actual service and procedural compliance, the High Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s decision, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the prolonged absence was serious misconduct.

The order setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits therefore stood; the authorities remained at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.