IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17"?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009:'-{}. _
BEFORE V
TIII3: HONBLE MRJUSTICE I\(IoH_:a:N'I"§E:_:II3'r _ 4
WRIT PETITION No.28505'/'.20'O_§§ (S-1f)Vi.3:I)A'~., ~. " "
BETWEEN: " V. 'V
M. Gangadhar S /v0.,.Sri M2:hes_h Babu,
Aged about 42 years} I "
Assistant Executive
CMC, Sindh_an0o1*, _ '
Raichur--D:istI*ict.
._ I . 1' _ - ...PETITIONER
(By Sn' Dayafiafxda'S';*__PatiL.__Ad.V0--r;aI{¢} '
AND: -------- "
1 The Staiéfliff V1{aI*11afaka',
'DepartIneI":ifV'Qf U.1jb'arI" Deveiopment,
RVEp1*esVeI1 I§3d'by iii}: SecI'eI';a'ry,
15" Flqor; ..Vika'sa Soudha,
'BaI1ga'1oaie M 560 001.
.v *Eh--:: Birector of Municipal Administration,
_ '~.Vis'tm{eshwaraiah Tower, Podium Block,
D17, AII1becika1' Veedi,
_Bé1ri_g;zi§0I"e -- 560 001.
I {J
.. .RESPOND ENTS
: [Sri T. PV;"b:'rinixIas, HCGP for R-- E;
_ Notice to R~2 issueé;
' , served & uI'1re'p1"sseI1i.e-d:
M
This Writ Petition is filed praying for granting interim
order to stay the execution and operation of the Order dated
08.09.2009 in Government Order passed by
Respondent and all further proceedings
thereof.
This Writ Petition coming on}: for_:order_g,
Court made the following: it 9 0 0 it it it
0 R OD
The petitioner .o”n._gbeingl “appointed as Junior
Engineer in the respondentg Mt:.nicipal’_i_Counci1 in the
year 1987, was eligible for pr_:(.)*Ir1otiC:9r_i_v~tohthepost of Assistant
Executive Engiiti’eet.v”but.,for.._t3’3.e[penclency of a departmental
proceeding over a.l1le’gedp_ lchtéii-ges of misconduct initiated on
01.06.2006. .9 Mt.micipai Council having promoted
lV”é:hVev’g_io tlielmpost of Assistant Executive Engineer by
Annexure–A recalled the same by
Order 08.09.2009 Annexure–B on the premise of
“i;3e’%\’clenct_,;’ ot discipiinary proceedings. Hence, this Writ
ti’?
Petition grounded on violation of principles of natural
justice.
2. The fact that the petitioner had__—-the
knowledge over the initiation of disciplinary’ as
on 01.06.2006 while a Junior Eng.inee’i~e.in ‘th_e’A.resp’ef’ide’i:i;_*
City Municipal Council is no~tii’n._pdispu.te. VTiie”‘fuift.her_.3fact
that but for the discipliiia;§_{“;w«._:p;oceeding_iyet} to be
completed/concluded, .1no_”irnpediment for the
respondent City M_Lii1icip.a1.Cou1’ic.ii:.,pto”iprorniote the petitioner
to the post of on the basis of
senioritycurn4’meri1t::A3is also n0’t~inv”dispute. Therefore, the
answeryto ” the “whether the petitioner was
rI1eritoriouse.enot1.g}i_ toi.s’eco’re a promotion apparently lies in
.. _ the decision of disciplinary authority after the conclusion
proceeding. The City Municipal Council
A/,
__ to the p»eiri:iencY of disciplinary
proceeding ‘on the date the petitioner was promoted to the
of Assistant Executive Engineer, the subsequent order
_’13,nr1e:§ure»B, inipugned herein, recailing the order
iii
promotion. without notice to the petitioner. cannot be said to
be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
because, the question of failure to observe natu’ral..’jt1.stiq_e
does not at all matter if the observance of.natu1jai-justice”
would have made any differericge
indisputable facts speaking for _thernselVes, siifice do
not issue futile writs as obserfiediay theVApex–£L’ou’:t in the
case of SL. Kapoor V/s. Jaitjarciiiianl’-.:<
3. Indisputiably, if pei;iti_onei’ pi”s:v.v”ahsolved of the
material allegatio:§:sl’ “pioceeding initiated
by the “Mptinieipaliii–Council, it is needless to
state that the peltitiicner be entitled to all the benefits,
both monetary and se:**;icei”..’i’r1eluding promotion.
_resu1t;””‘i’h¢ petition is Without merit and is
aci;ofdir:1gl.3t 1’eject_ed. The respondent: City Municipal Council
is’ conclude the enquiry proceedings as
‘leis 198.} so 136
expeditiously as possibie, in any event. within 2: period.-pf six
months from today.
RKK/~