IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT = %
DATED THIS THE 21"' DAY 0:: 2:393 L
BEI?0RI§i'~.__ % %
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTI€ff;'-AN3§ND'_BY R1§}§'EDfiY
WRIT PET1T1<31~z N.~;;5go?9% 2003 (S4133)
BETWEEN:
K. Nagaraju,4?7
S!oKKempe'G_aWd£':*_V_ ' '
Earlier worki3:;g:»as;'¢:V ' b . . ..
Branch K :31: * « .
'Gf§iI£--'!ifa':r_l'_Iéiv__ -- '
Hulixnahgala, }igani Pr::§t« _.
Anekal Taiask .- '
Bangalore Rir:'a_1
iliegally mmoved fium
V V' - Sefviéei.-and"%Rées&dinVg"'&t&
»S§1i£cga11z_1'~= $71'
A Taiuk
District ... PETITIONER
xN. Pmsanna, Advocate for Shri. P. S. Rajagopal)
' " V Iéialpamam Gramaena Bank
" body constituted undertize
' Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976
Representcd by its Chairman
Head Office.-:: 'Prasada Niiaya'
6
2
B. H. Road, Siddaganga Extension
Tun1kur~ 572 102
(By Shri. Pultige Rmpuadeul Ramesh, Advuw lc)--*.4'::"
¢¢¢¢¢ _-__au--i'4
This 'WritPe£i1ion is flied undiar the i
Constitution of India praying toquash'thé:* Quiet fitéd ;§6.i.4O'.i',002
Vida: Annfixun: M passed by Disciplinary iAui.htH3Vriiy zmd"
decision of the Appellate dated 31.12.2002
communicated la the p§:{i[ioner....Eiy'..(}rgier 6.3.2003 vidc
Annexuxe Petitioner ané all ccinmqgieaxfiai benefits including
teinsialcmenl inks the scr\d'ct'wo'f_ 3nd.paymcnl of arrears
of salary etc.
This this day, {he
Court J
1.3:.-.litium:r and the rcspundtsnl.
'is.V1i;eiipi:{i~*.iii)ner's case that he had joined the
" the it:i!i2i2£)(')'i'l"(iti.3ll{ on 1.02.1985. While. so working, the
as Branch Manager at Hulimangala
Q17 iiank. By an order dated 27.12.1996, the respondent
had géiaéad we puussuaer under mpensson_ Themaaer.
pitxscetiiizgs had been initiated by issuance of a charge
2
3
sheet dated 12.03.1997. The petitioner did not submit to
the chmgc sheet. According to the petitioner,
disclosed the material basis for the “Tho T.
haviag been duly appxsitltoct. to til:-3
Thcmaflcr, the Inquixy Ottmertttiottiing
recorded the evidence is that on
14.5.1998, the pctitioncrv and time
to engage a ta representation dated
l6.0S.lV’39_3v,€ Inquiry Olficcr to permit
him _ This was rejected by the Inquiry
Officur. disapprovtxl making representation
, ” to (§I’fieef__;tnd mjocted the prayer for a legal assistance
firitd Txwntinucti by the Inquity officer. It is contended by
at; panama;-ttgat on six occasions, as detailed in the writ petition,
the petitioner did have occasion to palticipate in the enquiry but
‘S-fisventeen occasions, on which dates the enquiry was
,A _,v_£:€>nducte¢L the petitioner was not in a position to participate in the
same. Inspite of this lack of opportunity to tho petitioner to
Q
6
6. The admitted circumstance of the pctitiuncgwhu of
his own smliiion did nui change to parfigipaic at eafifid ,
not cumpiain of the alleged infinnii}:?A:4wh§:r;..p;:t§{i(3r§6i”:’ayas1V?:iut .
diiigcnl in defending his 0aS(3€i’i.. Ih6″f§f1;IJl:€:dihL#.A”«:. ‘}7!f!t3 mma
allcagaiiuns made by of the
Inquiry Oiliccr, the the Afipcllate
Authority do ‘interference. The
findings havc: been aflirtncd by the
Céiénut be dismissed as being
lacmaicl lhc merits of the There
is rm. g1ut 3 z’xci fur inlcrfcrcnct: by this Court.
. . ” the is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge