_ 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. nisTiCE ANAND BYR.£{RED'm%
WRIT PETITION No. 24550-5 51, OF 2C;09tts§R_.E'si_s E' E
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri.Rucirachary.H.P,
Son of Late Puttachari,
Aged about 52 years, A ' -
Working as Kha1.asy.._(}radc3--I » . " ' _
Kudremukh Iron Ore C.orndt)-a2iy'VLi_rnit£:d,"
Kudremukh, aChickmag.aI'ur Distric t,V " '
ResidingN_o'_.r154§!A,§ -4 '
4"' Sector}, K.t:§dr6;ni11'kh,' _ _
Mudigére . V V
Chiclgmasgaiuif: Dis t;'_iCt,_V" "
% ;sri.s . Krishna' Murthy,
' S0;_n_0f.,_1ate Sri.vS-u-bba Raya,
Aged 3_b'0.L1t 46 years,
_ '' ''I\ZVo::§<'iag as" Senior Operator--Cum--Mechanic,
H " '-.V'G]EadȎ:"II3V.j:
A Kudrerziukh Iron Ore Company Limited,
2 Kndrernukh, Chickmagalur District,
x T Residing at No.319/B,
V ~.S<i:ct0r--I, Kudremukh,
it ' * --si\/Iudigere Taluk,
Chickrnagalur District. ...¥'ETITIONER
5
2
(By Shri.Si1bba Rao for M/s.Subba Rao and Company, Senior
Counsel)
AND:
1. KIOCL LIMITED,
Represented by the Chairman and
Managing Directior,
11 Block, Koramangala,
Banga1ore--560 034.
2. The Additional General Manager,
(Personnel), 0'
KIOCL Limited, a
II Block Koramang-al_a:; _
Banga1ore»~560 034. A 'RESPONDENTS
(By Kasturi Ass.oci'a.tes foii__Responden'ti.i1-- Respondent.2)
---- ,
ThEaaWrit Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution--.oft India to call for the entire records of the
case from the " re'spor:dei'its "and to quash (1) endorsement dated
_ 25.7...2.i009;~the origi.n.avl__Hof which has been produced as AnneXure--F
2 (2) c'ircu»l'ar dated 10.8.2009, the original of which has been
"-__prod'u.ced._"asv,23xnnexure~G both issued to petitioner no.1.
E_ndor.se-rrient~.dated 25.7.2009, the original of which has been
produced as'fAnhexure--L, and (4) Circular dated 10.8.2009 the
0 it _ original of which has been produced as Annexure--M both issued
K to petitioner no.2 as the said endorsements and the circulars suffer
0' V " from errors which are apparent on the face of the record and etc.,
Petitiomcoming on for orders this day, the Court
grade the following: --
8
ORDER
Senior Advocate, Shri Subba Rao, appearirig.,:for*–,the
Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitions
permitted to be Withdrawn with liberty’ to .ap’pro_ach:t.l1e: Central i
Administrative Tribunal.
The petitions are accordinglygdtisrnissedaswithdrawn, with
liberty to the petitioners itQ2,app_roaclhi” the,i_iCentra1 Administrative
Tribunal within ap,periodA,.of:’_20 if’the;;–petitioners are so
inclined.
The Seininvr wo-Iiid submit that the unusual
circumstance that are from Chhattisgarh and
instructions have’»t.o be obtained in order to draft the petitions to be
the-..Central Administrative Tribunal would result in
pier-espo1’id’_e–nt’s;;.”taking precipitative action, to remove the
‘,petitioners.from service and therefore, are in a predicament, which
efvvarrants the interference of this court atieast to direct the
K …_ll°respondents n_ot to take precipitative action in the meanwhile.
S
Therefore, in the Eight of other petitioners having
approached the Tribunai in similar circumstances and t.11e.:/flibsgnai
having entertained those applications, it is appropriate”tthat:i’thev.
respondents do not take up any precipitativepa’etion.,:iis:abjecti’toVi’the 9 j i
petitioners preferring applications expeditiousiyiiygithin
limit of 20 days from tomday.
IIV