The Commissioner of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Pa like. Bangalore-2, The Chief Accounts Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike. Bangalore-2 and The Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Bangalore-2 vs Smt. R. Usha

N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 22nd July 2011 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short.) in Application No. 358/2011 filed by the applicant respondent vide Annexure-B, have presented this writ petition.

The applicant respondent herein, questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration). B.B.M.P. Bangalore, third petitioner herein, has filed an application before the Tribunal, contending that. she belongs to Department of the State Accounts, on deputation posted to the Office of the Commissioner of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike on 1.7.2010 and since then she has been working satisfactorily. Within a short span of five months, she has been disturbed vide order dated 19.1.2011 wherein, respondents-petitioners herein have sought for repatriation of" her service which virtually amounts to transfer. The said order has been passed without the consent of the Cadre Management Authority or the parent department Further, it is the case of the applicant-respondent herein that, though she has represented for cancellation of her transfer, she is likely to be relieved at any moment. The said application had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file and after going through the stand taken by the respondents-petitioners herein in their objections, has allowed the said application and set aside the order impugned dated 19.1.2011 with an observation that, applicant-respondent shall be continued as First Division Accounts Assistant at BBMP, Bangalore, for the period of deputation or until she is recalled by the parent department or until her transfer becomes necessary in the exigency of public service, whichever is earlier. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents-petitioners have presented this petition, seeking appropriate relief, as stated supra.

We have heard learned counsel for petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the out set submitted that, the Tribunal has committed a grave error of irregularity in allowing application filed by the applicant-respondent contrary to the materials available on record. Further, he submitted that, as a matter of fact, memo has been issued to the applicant respondent on 14.1.2011 relating to her late coining to the office and warning that disciplinary action would be taken against her and the copy of the attendance register of the respondents- petitioners office to show that as per the memo dated 14.1.2011 she remained absent for one day on 14.1.2011 and five days before passing of the impugned order and the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal and it has proceeded contrary to the stand taken by the respondents petitioners-in their objection and held that applicant respondent has not been called upon to have her say in the matter and her services have been surrendered without any reference to the Cadre Controlling Authority, the Controller, State Accounts Department. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside on the ground that her services is unsatisfactory, she was habitually reporting late to the office and her conduct and attitude towards work and superiors in the department was poor and unsatisfactory and such attitude towards work and the office can vitiate the entire work atmosphere. Therefore, he submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

After consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and after careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and other materials available on file, it is not in dispute that applicant -respondent herein has attended the office late for three times time she has remained absent for one day on 14.1.2011 five days before passing of the impugned order of repatriation due to sudden fever, she has informed the same on the same day over phone and on 15.1.2011 she applied for one day C.L. on medical ground and it has been sanctioned. It is significant to note that, so far as memo dated 14.1.2011 is concerned, the same refers to absence of one day on 14.1.2011. The Tribunal has rightly observed that, the contention of the respondents-petitioners that, repatriation of the applicant-respondent herein is on the grounds of alleged irregular attendance and her attitude towards work and her superior is not supported by any material and they have also not produced any material regarding the attitude of the applicant towards the work and superiors. Further, the applicant-respondent herein has not been called upon to have her say with regard to the allegations and her services have been surrendered without any reference to the Cadre Controlling Authority, the Controller, State Accounts Department. Further, the Tribunal has observed that, the order impugned therein is penal in nature and calls for interference on the ground that, ii the borrowing authority is not satisfied with the work of the applicant-respondent, it can request the lending authority to withdraw her services, and opined that the said order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and such orders cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and accordingly, allowed the said application.

Further, the Tribunal has rightly observed that, if the performance of the applicant is not satisfactory to the borrowing authority, it can request the lending authority to withdraw the service of the applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and we do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the well considered order passed by the Tribunal.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, with liberty to the petitioners to lake appropriate action against the applicant-respondent, in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.