Karnataka High Court Clarifies Voluntary Retirement Rules in KSRTC Case
The Karnataka High Court has made a significant observation regarding voluntary retirement applications. The court stated that simply submitting an application for voluntary retirement does not automatically give an employee the right to be granted retirement from service.
Court Dismisses Driver's Appeal
A division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijayakumar A Patil dismissed the appeal filed by L Srinivas, a KSRTC driver from Chitradurga. The driver had challenged a single bench order from September 2022 that allowed KSRTC's writ petition and set aside a labor court direction.
The labor court had previously directed KSRTC to consider Srinivas's application for voluntary retirement. However, the high court found this direction inappropriate given the circumstances of the case.
History of Unauthorized Absences
Srinivas joined KSRTC in 1997 and faced multiple disciplinary issues throughout his career:
- He received fines for unauthorized absence early in his service
- In 2010, KSRTC dismissed him from service
- The labor court set aside this dismissal in 2011 and ordered his reinstatement with a reduction of four increments
- Despite this second chance, Srinivas again went on unauthorized leave from January 18, 2013
- After a disciplinary inquiry, he was removed from service on July 10, 2015
Court's Detailed Observations
The division bench noted several critical points in their judgment:
- Pattern of Absence: Even after reinstatement following the first dismissal, Srinivas continued to remain absent without authorization
- Labor Court's Recognition: The labor court itself had noticed the appellant's continued absence pattern
- Inadequate Documentation: Srinivas failed to provide proper leave applications supported by genuine medical certificates
- Photocopy Issue: He produced only a photocopy of a medical certificate that wasn't even marked as evidence
- No Communication: If the absence was medically necessary, there was no explanation for failing to inform the employer
- Unsubstantiated Claims: Apart from making claims under disability rights provisions, no material showed requests for light duties
Legal Reasoning Behind the Decision
The court emphasized that once the labor court found the disciplinary inquiry to be fair and the absence unjustified, it should not have set aside the dismissal. The single judge had correctly noted that this was Srinivas's second dismissal and he had been given a previous opportunity to reform.
The division bench stated clearly that in cases where an employee has a continuous history of unauthorized absence - which the labor court itself acknowledged - the labor court should not have ordered reinstatement or consideration of a voluntary retirement application.
The court held that the labor court disregarded important documents while making its decision. The dismissal was set aside solely because the appellant had applied under the voluntary retirement scheme, which the high court found insufficient grounds for overturning a properly conducted disciplinary action.
This judgment reinforces that voluntary retirement applications must be considered in the context of an employee's complete service record and disciplinary history. Mere submission of such an application does not override legitimate disciplinary actions taken by employers.
