G M Devaraju S/O Madappa vs The Commissoner And Director on 24 April, 2009

EN THE iiififi COURT (IF KARNATAKA AT BA4'v3GAL(}R}3 W.P.I'~1a.ll6?€) O? 2939
1

N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS mm: 24"' DAY 01? APRIL, 2609,

BEFORE

THE HoN*BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL__  I  1  L
wmr pmxrxon No. 11670 or 2099 %j,§»; jE-Arrés %;A T %% %    

BETWEEN:

G M DEVARAJU 3:0 MABAPPA  _,
RIOF GEJJAGARAGUPPEV KASASA HQEILI. " -- . .
wxeaoa 312., RAMANAGARA 5331., . , " ~. » =

-- _   émrsouen
(By$fi:AVGASSOC4:\TES  - ; é 

AND:     

1 THE cammzassonea ANa.'mREci5oia  
ox: FGO€3~AND£'_.;1'v'!L :3_UPPL:E3_ . 
N€J.'8;"C€3r€3§3ER1&';';":'s'E 's=5£>ERATk3re--asuILt>:NG,
CFJNNlNGHA.§$ Rom), BANGAl.Qi?i'~.~'

2 THV;££.DEPUT\'--CC}§J1:iv§,!é'3:3!('§f\:EE:'R~
RAMANAf3:ARA"E)%ST.' _ 
RAMANAGARA  A

.. Ǥ;Ti~:iEE' $AHseL*.3-Ax V
v-  'a.m<sA{:~2. T:REcToR 0:: man a cum. sLn=>:=~L:Es

 %  L  {By Sr: : HMARENDRA Paasac. Heep;

. ' '-.VV{}FFiCE-Q¥-";THE DEPUTY C-OMMISSIGNER
'  RA¥§fiANA£3éiRA DIST.

 RESPONDENTS

ifiii

ms wan’ PETWON ss Fii.ED mean ARHCLES 226 me 227 or

-4, “wag cowsmunon or: ENDIA PRAYING TO C.’1UA$H THE IMPUGNED
OFHCIAL MEMGRANDUM or’ 233.2% sssuan av THE R2 A:-40

1N YHE BIGH C{,3L§R’i'(}F KA§{NA’i’AKA AT EANQALORE W.P.N£3.} 1670 OF 2009

11% TIES Iilfiil COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Ne.l 1678 OF 2095?
4

presented this writ petition, seeking appropriate reiiegae

stated supra.

4. I have heard iearned __ceunsei_–‘ ‘fore. “‘

petitioner and {earned Governmenf:<P!e'§m'er

respondents.

5. After careful eva;£uatie’nVVV:ef;tF§e_§’r1etes*iei eeailabfe
on record, it emerges has been
passed on 23*’? the eeid date,
the matter of en merits in
accorde,§1eeV 1992. Keeping the

euspensie’n_ “erider,’inl ‘fefee”‘?er severe} months without

decidjaftg _the’4’Vr1″2V:at_%fer1’ er: ewerite is not justifiable. The

mierrt being the competent authority ceught

{£3 .heve of the matter on merits, after afferding

V –:fease§’seb§e ‘o}3pec’tunity ta flue petitioner in accordance

« ‘me reievant provisiene ef the Control Ofdef, 1992.

Taking into consideration the facts and

‘4_4 .’eircun’:emrmeee of flue case, ee stated etiove, without

if;

M Tiiii’ HIGH COURT 0%’ K.Al{NA’1’AK_A. AT BANGALORE W.P.No.! 36?!) {J}? 2099