Supreme Court of India

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusP.S. RAMAKRISHNA

Citation: 1996 INSC 80
Decided: 17 January 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIAS B MAJMUDAR

Holding

A notice returned marked “Not present” is deemed to have been served on the respondent.

Summary

The appeal arose from an order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting a service matter involving P.S. Ramakrishna. The appellant argued that a notice sent on 28 September 1993, which was returned marked “Not present”, should be deemed served on the respondent. The Tribunal had not treated the notice as served. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijay Shanker & Ors., the Court held that a notice returned as “Not present” is sufficient to constitute service. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a notice returned as “Not present” can be deemed to have been served on the respondent
Whether the Tribunal’s order should be set aside in view of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijay Shanker & Ors.

Subjects

service lawnotice serviceadministrative tribunalKarnataka Public Service Commissionappealjurisprudence

Judgment

A              KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                                        v.
                             P.S. RAMAKRISHNA

                              JANUARY 17, 1996

B    [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

           Se1vice Law :

         Order of the Tribwtal-Set aside in view of the law laid down by
C   Supreme Cowt and as the matter is covered by the decision.

          Kamataka Public Se1vice Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijay Shanker &
    Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 206, held applicable.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2413 of
D 1996.                                                                           •

        From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.90 of the Karnataka
    Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in A No. 6612 of 1990.

           M. Veerappa for the Appellant.
E          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Though the notice was sent to the respondent on September 28, 1993,
    it came back with an endorsement "Not present. Hence return to sender".
    It would be obvious that the respondent is avoiding service. Notice must,
F   therefore, be deemed to have been on the respondent.

           Leave granted.

         The controversy raised in this case is covered by the decision of this
    Court in Kamataka Public Se1vice Commission & Ors. v. B.M. Vijaya
G   Shanker & Ors., [1992] 2 sec 206.

          Following the said decision, the appeal is allowed and the order of
    the Tribunal is set aside, but without costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.

                                       692

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search