Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition

Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition of an employee of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), challenging disciplinary action taken against him. The Court upheld the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, citing misconduct, disobedience, and insubordination.

S. Purushothama, employed as a personal secretary-cum-judgment writer, had been relieved from his position at the KSAT’s Bengaluru Bench and directed to report to the Belagavi Bench. He did not comply with the deployment order and continued to mark attendance at the Bengaluru Bench despite being relieved. Additionally, he was accused of using rude language towards the Tribunal's chairman.

Following a disciplinary inquiry, he was penalized with the withholding of two annual increments. His appeal and subsequent review application before the KSAT were dismissed, prompting him to file the present writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court rejected Purushothama’s contention that the Tribunal’s chairman lacked authority to order his deployment, citing Section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which vests the chairman with general superintendence over employees. Justice Krishna S. Dixit, writing for the Bench, observed:

“The position of the chairman is pivotal in the administration of the Tribunal. As the ‘conscience keeper’ of the Tribunal, his authority must be respected. Any disobedience of administrative orders strikes at the core of organizational discipline.”

The Court further stated that deployment is a prerogative of the employer and that employees cannot challenge such orders without substantive legal grounds:

“An employee cannot sit in self-judgment as to the validity of instructions and disobey the same with impunity. To do so would disrupt public administration and undermine the chain of command.”

Rejection of Claims on TA/DA and Suspension
Purushothama argued that the deployment order was invalid because it did not assure payment of travel allowances (TA/DA). The Court dismissed this as a pretext to avoid compliance, noting:

“The petitioner himself admitted that TA/DA had been paid during previous deployments. His claim of progressively diminishing allowances is unsubstantiated and legally untenable.”

The Court also upheld the suspension imposed during the inquiry, emphasizing that such measures are standard in disciplinary proceedings and are accompanied by subsistence allowances.

The High Court took a stern view of Purushothama’s actions, describing insubordination as a grave threat to public service discipline. Justice Dixit remarked:

“Insubordination is a contagious malady in public employment, spreading exponentially and leading to maladministration. It cannot be viewed leniently under any circumstances.”

The Court found the punishment of withholding two annual increments to be proportionate, noting:

“The charges against the petitioner were grave, and the punishment awarded commensurates with the misconduct. The disciplinary authority’s decision is final unless proven arbitrary or excessive, which is not the case here.”

The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s conduct in pursuing a meritless case, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Justice Dixit stated:

“The petitioner’s family circumstances, though sympathetic, cannot override the requirements of public employment. Frivolous challenges undermine the judicial process and must be discouraged.”

This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining discipline in public service and respecting administrative hierarchies. It affirms the authority of disciplinary bodies and reinforces the principle that judicial forums should not be misused for frivolous litigation.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2024