High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Puttannaiah vs The Chamundeswari Electrical … on 9 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttannaiah vs The Chamundeswari Electrical … on 9 January, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
.,.._A ,7. -wmnuumunnfi rm:-n uuulu Ur IIAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HKGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH EWW

Olli

4..

IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
omen THIS THE 9*" DAY or mum zoos
PRESENY

THE Momma mm. 9.0. axunmmm, cg-uer= JUSTICE    %

AND

THE Hormm MRJUSTICE %

L §_E’_[fl§EN

sum
sic: LATE Sfis1§N’E;=§3oWt9AT’*’vL.’ « § i
as-so m~rEAF¥-5’»
ncLAssMEcr;.«m1c%% %
cascam sua-oni15Ix3NT»%%% _
K.R.NAGA.’-3 _
MY5ORE[)I§IfRIC’T._ A *

AA ….. _. v APPELLANT.

(By Amfl, (absent) )

A_ND’;

4’£\a-‘-L”_-u- ‘

it-as c:r+muuaEswAR1 ELECRICAL
A supvvr coapomrmu

3Hé:i’§”MH< $2 %mfl'¢Wfi…..WNws..ww.. «Am».

(LTD.) REP. BY ITS
execunve ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL)
DNISIONAL OFFICE
HUNSUR

MYSORE DISTRICT

H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU

E
2
§
5

2 SHRI NINGE RAJU
5/D PUTTE GOWDA

MAJOR
KEIKEERE VILLAS

K.R.MAGfiR TALUK %
.;k%%ka;:-maonoenrs
wan £1/é A_$:_’t”):f’-f “V§’¥!i:””iii€ARNATAKA HIGH
mun? AcrV%:?miY;f§:c:%mf%ké’§ErAsrpsms omen msssn
IN THE 5163259/as mreo 1e;6,t2ooe.

‘fhi; ..; flgppéal coAr;r;ing up for preliminary hearing
en’tPu”:§da’y, delivared flue Following:

..,….. …..m n…uu|<I or KARNATAKA may COURT op KARNATAKA age

JQDGIII Efl!

K appeal 3 filed by the petitioner in ms.
V i'4a;:8259l2m8, whemin the laarned singie Judge of this
"bourt has dcclinod tan interior: with the urdur of

\_,J

u§€35"%§ié~\i§ 'W'wW*§M"$&e..mr'am» am mM…mM..

– — v – —-.-.—.g.v–,.r’4′.’ “r””‘h””‘” “Iii”-savunl vr nnxflflinkn l’!¥Gl’! COUKTOF KARNATAKA’ Wig?!” ‘COUR:T”0F’ KHARNQTAMKA

-3-

suspension dated 07.06.2008 and rejected the writ pafition
with liberty in the petitioner to give a repmsentati_¢§~§o

nespcndent Na.1 saekiny for revccaztion of the_..$}i7s}5e’r;–a§iE:::_’_

order.

2. The appailant hnri’in._’fil¢icH_i’?’.P, xiqasézziaos iii

seeking for washing of the fiisfiiqifisififi dated

0?.66.2£Jm and for -a respandent —
Corporation ratsfiuiningv _ dlscipiirmry
antion tiii under the
with law aftur

giving disc poftifionur.

_Itu2is’-»v.;a;Vaén-azéfi ii: the writ peeuon that the

W O’ the first rapondmt .

_ V iiia Staw Gavamrrtmg which is an
A L sum wimin the munimcmraciu 12of
‘ of India. Thu petitioner joined service as
iitiiisuaciém am Macimnic in the year new and has
his sarvica and b about to rabre from mrvice

* Lion attainm the age of supei-amntmfian dm-ing January

\,.)

-6-

boanplncad under suspcnsion and disciplinary unquirg has
ban initiated against him. Learned single 3udgg.f§::rEsgr

held that we order of suspension is dated

tha writ petition. has bean filed wiljjitj ‘*

data of this said order and no:

interfering with the order of.»§t:sipen§ia_ri” unddw ho

the petitioner as am fl1§”firijtv’:rud§¢ondont
making for ravocatior;;._._”‘t:fA .v%£§:s;d§fis_§on drder and
accordingly, dismissed djnukrst fine above said
omervations Being aggrieved
by an mu has proforrad this

appnal.

fife sc.r:1tiz§1i;-zsad the rmbarial on reward.

dd.”:’«w–.ff1t§§.’vfiF;atarial on record would clearly show that

_ thud:-%1ov£__’c;e2:sr;*a*§ notice was iwued an the writ petitioner –

………–….-mn mun uuuru Ur IEAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUI

and he has mpliud to that said noticc.

A db: oxptanation given by the writ potitiomr was not

‘jj’14’:Vs«at§sfactory, he has been Imp: under suspensian by order

dated 67.06.3368 and disciplinary enquiry has been

\.J-

…,….,……… ruun \.uuIu Ur :sAxNA?AKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUI

-8-

reserved to him. Accordingly, we hold that than: is no

merit in this We-ii: Appeai and pass tha following order;

The Writ Appeaf is dismissed, M.’.f8I’fl€&.”‘C§;”i’&u-:’:8{3if5¢ifl”‘V5 ”

dismissud on rnvarit, it is unnacaisparyT«..to ‘–g§–.’intdifthsaxi

question of dalay in filing the agémgt. =

A uséice

_ sums

1: . ‘ “”t:,flz;Ng