High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjunath vs The Divisional Controller on 11 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Manjunath vs The Divisional Controller on 11 August, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Malimath


IR THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA Am BAggA$cég wx

aamzs wars THE 11″*nAx or Aueuswg gees” * k

PRESENTI”

TEE fiON’BLE M.Jvs$IcE’E,t,flANJfi3a?H=”K
Ann_v_ *. . C_xj»,Ws
THE HON’£LE MR.JUSTECE RAVI HfiLIMmTB

wua.Hc,13a3″c:C26ugCL4s2m)”

BETWEEN :

3Efi_ABCH?,54’3E&R$ I
R/A:’sAMRAa& ‘,fa5gTT
BARLANE 4 *j ,V,’
wUMKuR.5?2191»’ ‘

f”L. =, “‘ ‘ … APPELLANT

:V_ {B§ s££;iM,c BASAARh£U,ADV.)

A§35 § ~Ta”

°” “ruMKum 572101

;’«THE’niV:s1ouAL COKTRGLLER
Ksawc

– TUHKUR nrvzsron
.. RES?0H®EKT

‘EH15 WRIT APPEAL FILE!) [US 4 OF’ THE

HIGK CaJ’R’lI.’ ACE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER FA$$ED IN THE WRIT PE’I’I’£’ION
}¥c>.19253/200′? DATED 16/12/2008.

@%*””

ways APPEA£ coming on FoR_h2§aL:gz$ARr
gzaaxue THIS nay, RAVI HALIMATK J, DE;1vEEnD_’

was FOLLOWIRG: ;

._»__-1_3’£

This appeal is by
being’ aggrievad. fig; tfi%@t§%§%t,dtgi6:12.2008
passed by ‘the Judge in
w.p.xo.19;5$f2é§7§ j: i ‘ w3

2;»W ?$4;fia§ii% fi’fiétition was filed
quesfi i.gz$i:ngV in I .D.HO.

83/2004 »ghe:éi§ age orders of punishment

by fihe..____Managemnt on 16.12.1997 and

2VOO§’v%. t-rare up held. The Learned Single

a5’ex;ige considering the impugned order:

thézzain V and in View of the faczt and

A efiitamnstances invnlved therein modified the

égrdaex of the Labour Court by holding that tlxe

annual inczrezmnts fer the said period were to

be withhald only for 2 yesazrs and the balance

ta be restored while restoring hi3 basic pay,

@4W

3. Having heard the counséi:

parties ,

with the order, when>?.s:3::>ec: i.~:E:”L”c_

granted. by the Learfiéé. sflng;¢=fJ¢&§éW£whiié
passing the

4. In the and in
View of flay the Learned

Singlei » :16 good ground to

interfere Single

Judge .

5. The_appe;i.§eifig\dé§oid of merit, is

reje¢téa,’~’

Sd/~
JUDGE

Sd/~
JUDGE

we find no rézisaitg ta “‘inte:§«fe::;:’e T