IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCGIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLI~33 MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJUN;;?§H , 1. AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AieAv5i_N1j Writ Amaeal of ' it Between: A A Basavaraj 8/0 Hanumantappa Vathar ._ J ' .« Age: 25 years, Occ: Central Govt'; T A » R/o R.P.F. Barracks, 'M.Qi"x1a~Aii Ground " .. Hubii -- 20 = . I (By Sri K.L.P:'a_ti1°, And: it A A 1. ; The D'i'€«':isier'1ai See€irity__C.ommissioner A RPF S'0ut'hv-.restern Railway WDRM Office Cpfnpound Keshwapm-»1Roaid-,.iagubii -- 20 Dist;ADt1arwa':§.. 2. The Inspector" f R-PF/ Railway Workshop (Inquiry Officer) " }3.Qut2'1western Railway Gadag Road 1-Eubi_i, Dist: Dharwad .. Respondents
. ‘i:t’iA(B§:iSrit§G.R.Andanimath, Advocate)
6%/..
This writ appeal is filed 11/ s 4 of the Karnataka Higph”-Court
Act, praying to call for records and allow the writ petitionisettping
aside the order dt. 14.09.2009 passed in W.P.No.6285Hl/f2009».a1ad
etc. ”
This appeal coming on for preliminary ..
Manjunath, J., delivered the following: — –
JUDGMENT ‘
Sri G.R.Andanimath underta’i§:es”-to filehlnerno of_alppe’arance. it
2. There is a delay of twxo.daysf.i’r.7. appeal. Being
satisfied with the cause. shown” by delay in filing
the appeal is condoinediilAccordingly; jj:~zi’isic:.iii’.No.e2568/2009 is
allowed.
3. By consentthe.V,§:;;f§ea’l”is:jheard on merits.
it 9′ .4. appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of
the iorderi learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2009
:Ti7pa_ssed of 2009. The appellant is working as a
.dfconustab1e in” Railway Protection Force, I-Iubli Division. He was
‘i.a§rresté_d.ph3}”‘I_3idar New Town Police on the ground that he has been
9′ il,inV_ol’i}edij§in an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Crime
3″}
No.142/2008. He was remanded to judicial custody. Later “on he
was released on bail. Now the appellant has been susp’ende:d_c.ilhy
his employer and a charge memo has also been issued it
disciplinary proceedings against him. Challengingjthel’ 0lf’rthie.p
employer in issuing the charge memo, ipetitioni’w’gis.. ._
quash the same and to direct the ‘res’ponden’ts not to the ”
inquiry proceedings. The learned ~i_J_udge idismilssed the
writ petition. Being aggrieved present appeal is
filed. V ‘V i it i’ 3
5. Though lg}? hearing, we
have heard to the learned counsel
for the appellant; the against him are untenable
and he hasnot irio1ated~.v”Rnl-esii134(C), 145.4 and 147(1) of the
&Priotec3tion”P.’orce léilllles, 1987.
6. lfirilliG.R!_.Anida’nimath, learned counsel for the respondent
that”it’iis open for the appellant to raise any objection
lv_i_ihi.ch«ii’according to him are tenable and if such objections are
raised’, the disciplinary authority would consider the same in
(3.
accordance with law. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss
the appeal.
‘7. Having heard learned counsel appearing”Io-ri’the’=parties,””
we are of the View that the learned SingleA_Ju:d.glefivhas
any error in rejecting the writ petition for thevfollowingi re-..a_son_s:;: V
Admittedly, the charged-.frartnied_ ieeued by the
respondent for the violation of 147(i) of the
Railway Protection the Disciplinary
Authority to prove” the appellant. If
really the appellantvj’.ljas;€’not«jyiovlated any one of the Rules, the
appellant cannot’ iee the disciplinary authority.
Therefore, is premature’ for to say whether the appellant has
v.{ola’ted C1′: thepéprulesworlnot. Accordingly, the writ appeal is
disim§s’ed.i” — :.’f..[i –
sd/-
roost
sd/~
IUDGE