No action taken, so school assistant’s absence cannot be proved

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court has said that charges against a second-division assistant of a school who allegedly remained absent for a year cannot be proved because the school authorities did not initiate any action against him. Therefore, he was entitled to the salary during this period.

NS Kantharaju worked as a second-division assistant in Bhagini Niveditha High School in Bengaluru. He was transferred to the Sri Raghavendra Ashrama School in 2009. He reported for duty on February 2, 2009. However, he was not paid salary for a period from February 2, 2009 to February 15, 2010 on the ground that his absence was unauthorised. He approached the school authorities and the education department but his grievance was not redressed.

Therefore, he filed a petition in the High Court. A singlejudge bench by an order dated December 2, 2020 held that he was entitled to salary for the said period. The Sri Raghavendra Ashrama School, however, filed an appeal that was heard by a division bench of the HC. The Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil gave its judgment recently.

The bench said, “The learned Single Judge has taken into account the defense set up by the appellant that the employee remained absent for a period from 02.02.2009 to 15.02.2010. The learned Single Judge has therefore held that in case the employee was absent for such a long period of time, the appellant ought to have initiated disciplinary action against the employee. It has further been held that in the absence of any disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant , an inference cannot be drawn that he remained absent unauthorised.”

Dismissing the appeal, the HC said, “It has further been held that insofar as the employee continues to be in service, he is entitled to salary. Therefore, the appellant has been held entitled for payment of salary. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned single judge.”