IN THE HIGH comm" OF KARNATAKA AT sANGALo:§E.T%
DATED THIS THE 29*" MY or LSULY, 2os3:9%% :
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MR..msT1cE s{.*:..fiA#N3ufiA*m. = "
AND
THE HON'BLE MR».a3_Usir?£CEA.'RAV1n.MALiMAT:s:
war: APPEAL 1%N_ga.17<~~o2%T%9F'»--2,gg.;3_(s_ -1351
BETWEEN :
Smt. N. Bharathi Ka$i'ammai'=_
Aged abo;I.i_';Z Bouyears" ~
WZGQ. Rav'ichaAnd%ar ****
R/at NVre 560 068. APPELLANT
M %imsn%.;. satnisn Kumar & Sri T.R.Sridhar
Ady'eca'tes)
" ifialjjunath 3;,_. Delivered the following-
AND:
1.
The Principal Secretary
Central Silk Board
(:58 Complex, BTM Layout,
Madiwala,
Bangalore – 560 068.
2. The Chairman
Central Silk Board
Ministry of Textiles,
(3558 Complex, BTM Layout
Madiwaia, Bangalore —- 560 068.
3. The Central Silk Board,
Represented by the Secretary’ _
Ministry of Textiles, –. ‘
CS8 Complex, BTM layqixt, ~_ V
Madlwaia, Bangalore — 553 (3f5f$.;’ _ –.
” ..’.”R.ESPONDENTS
(By Sri lAéa:…_isl.vflled under section 4 of the
Karnataka High Cqurt Act praying to set aside the order
passed in –v.,Vthe« w.rit Petition No.2135S/’2000 dated
29/as/2eo3.tl’;,_
Thlé ..a””ppéVafil coming on for hearing this day,
-3-
l|.!D.§.B.EHI
The appeflant is chaiienging the iegality ahd–::.fthé.,_’
correctness of the order passed in Writ *
No.3-11355/2000 dated 29″‘ August, zoos, whér§i”n7.tné”wr:t A’
Petition flied by the appelkant herein {Seen
confirming the order of punishhje-ht on the
disciptinary authority anq whlcht.h.efs.been cotnfiriiheofi by the
appehate authority. h’ V
2. The faotsiieadihgfltto’ hereunden.
The aptoeité.-mV1;_’VA3’was.,:hrorkir:g as Assistant Professor
(Technicamn xnettgrmte:tt%cen:ran sux Board, Bangaiore.
On a gzompiairitr-.rrraoe iiéf her imrnediatesuperior she was
I-‘i¢_ suspVehdé?i’ pfeneing voeeartmehtai enquiry. Accordingiy, a
served on her 21-5-1998. The nature
of oharoes’Eei&~elted against the appeflent was that she was
Z””~..Ve’rrogaht-…’end had exhibited extreme insubordlnation
47
A ftéwares her immediate Gfficer Smtxtgshame Giridharam
(V
Officer the disciplinary authority after hearing the appeliarit
passed an order on Li-3-1999 imposing punishment of
reduction in annual increment for a period of one year
treating the period of suspension as
Challenging the punishment Imposed on her’**sh:e~_..fl’led«an_:” v.
appeal before the appellate authprity-.eAA.fiv
authority dismissed the appeai__ on’
aggrieved by the same, the was’ The
teamed Single Judge by noAAanebiguity
in the charge andthe td…h’a5ige’V”been proved,
dismissed the ‘”‘.;CIh_atl:en:_iingiéthe Eegality and
the “passed by the learned Single
Judge, the upresent a_pr:’eai:l’s tiled.
..4.~v._ffhe*«.:leva.rned counsel for the appeilant contends
“the.vdVisg:ip’iiinvary authority, the appellate authority as
Lpweil as..the learned Single Judge have failed to consider the
“..jije§fiden’ce”‘let~in by the management. According to him, the
Ofhcer as well as the disciplinary authority so also
5/
the appeliate authority including the learned Singie dideot
censider the evidence let-in by the management….:4’_-1’f’««the”«
evidence iet-in by the management had been t
the authorities would not have impesed”the’~punisth}’nent’:ent’R
the appellant as the appeiiant has net
wrong while discharging her*.._.;d’Vbties not
behaved in an arrogafntA_ manner% herV””is’m}~riediate
superiors. on account i ttwtorigketgreejatlon of the
evidence and. management
witnesses the by demoting
her to ei’io”wer; requests this Court to
peruse tithe to find out whether the
evidence ieté’-in eepreciated by the authorities and
-‘”~..v\genet_i”}er;»_.t:heve_ appueii’ee.tA«has discharged her duties properiy
5. contra, the learned counsei for the
:’.responden”ts, by producing the original records submits
‘th_Vat~ the aiiegations made against the appeiiant is a case of
of”
work assigned to her on 17-4-1998 and 22-451998. The
. v\»0’j(i’L::[f{:’ W”
articles of charge does not contain the work assigned to
V\
the appellant by Smt.K:-mama Giridharan, on 17-4+t1e§_Se.._
and 224-1993, in order to find out whether’
instructiehs given by the Deputy Dirxtof of Statietftfievas ht
carried out by the appellant or not. lie’ the e§1tui’:’e_.’aft:-:ti$f-eaf
charge the detaiis of work assIgh_ed_V by Vth.e”Depet:§
which was refused by the appeIlaht”‘hve$.Vhot tliseiosed.
Smt.Kshama Giridharan been s.w.1. In
her examination-in-thief shefieee. higtiéifiut the work
assigned ivte’Vtthei%viavp;;§é}ieht-end tnanner in which the
appellant «!3eha\V(ettj In the cross–examination
it was $u90est*ed te VhverAAt_het”nVSmt.K% ashma Girtdharen had
Xthe epzpeileht’**te’type certain papers manuaiiy on
she has given an answer that she
never__”ia”ske_d;’tihetlappellant to type on manual typewriter.
hashaise answered in the cross-examination that
t-g{p§n:gt”%rtres not the job entrusted to the appaiant. She has
W,
not given any details of the work assigneé to the agapehant
an 17’-‘*’ April and 22″” April, of 1993.
3. One Sri Sflanjunda Sastry, Statisticiah’;~.:has.:t:;§én’
examined as S.W.2. In his cross-eX a’t7’avifs«atiIc>n.1:hag._ha’s_7
admitted that in his presence, Smt.v4Ex’…AB:§harath.f..”.Kéiia’rrtr1§é’ivht’V
has not exhibited any arrogancés«s.h:ut he. has ‘atso
that she has refused tattje..’_work”§;,’Vt.:’j__ 2?-‘4¥1’§’98 and
this he has Eezarnt from the; sgfiutyjin:$§¢4:qr{statist:cs) and
further he has Ixaliamn-ya: has
refused to tyifés her job.
Ramashesh who is
working és steheg:fa.Vg:jn§e;rgttécned to the Oeputy Director
of statistics”sectao§n. she has deposed in the cross-
‘exanfifiatxon that §h'”1’7″‘ and 22″‘ of April, 1993, that she
“i1.as__s’.fef£jse:¢5’v'”tt>: ‘§,*o the work assigned by the Deputy
Difectsr. cross-examination she has admitted that
7-*4.___Smt.Bhar§thi Kaiiammal has refused to type the tatter on
that it is not her jab. S.W.4 is one
5*’
-12..
the opinion that there is insubordination or arrogant
behaviour at best the appeiiant shouid have been
censured.
13.. In the resuit, the appgal. is ai_§dwé<§'_';vaii'd §:he– _ "
orders passed by the appellate auvi:Ah'or;'_ty~:aIé'u. thé' !§"aQV:V'_r..eéi1I.j
Singie Judge are hereby sét'*~..§sidé!=. .:e:§é&ifingVVV {ha
appeuant. The agfipellant is erxtsV_a',_i4_ie5't£.:_1_'n_:7of post
and punishment imposew/:%’;;y authority is
herebv set aside». and thé.ifaPP§f§3\fiii’v_ i%§ ‘»vé”fititied to ail
conseq1;é2″ri’fiVa’lT’ .’
Sd/~
JUDGE
Sd/4
EUDGE