S K Guruswamy vs The Divisional Controller on 18 December, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY 05' DECEMBER, 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE OSREDDTA  E  O'

 

WRIT PETITION NO. 29459 OT 2099 

BETWEEN

SKGURUSWAMY _ V.

S/O. KEZIVIPASIDDAIAH ' I
AGE4'7YEARS -_ 5 ~ 
TRAFFIC CONTRUirLER.IKSiQ'I'C " 
KEMPEGOWDA 'I*sLIS- S'rA'I'Io1\;I=' ' ._ 1.. 
BANGAI,0R_E»+--..9.  ~   I  PE'I'ITIONER

(BY   ._  '

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL C'ON"1'RO'LL}c3R'<.--"

KSRTC, I'E(:10vvDI'x BUS '

STATIQN DLIVISIIQNS, SUBASHPJAGAR

BANGALORE -3'. _   RESPONDENT

 (BY   iADv)

 '.TIr-IIS OOFETETION Is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

V é   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

I.iI»1Ie»IU.GI'~:ED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.8.2009 VIDE
O' AIeN;A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

{JX ..\



IN.)

THIS PETETION. COMNG ON FOR PRL.I-IEARIl\§G IN

'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE OOURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: .._'   

ORDER

The petitioner suffered an order dated.”2’l¥CZ7} ll-,99;8

AnneXure–“B” whereunder his basic pay wasliiedticed * V
two stages for a period of three years, fonproved

misconduct. That order was noit~~..call_ed _in— qtiestion in

an appropriate legal proceeding,
a representation dated H2008′ to

reconsider the order u”w*h’i’ch ‘i*es1ilted in an

endorsiemerit 1§Gt§f2OQ§’Annexure«”A”, declining

the reqi1.est_forreconsidélration. Hence, this writ

petition g

absence of a challenge to the order dated

11;’: filnnexure-“B”, the petitioner cannot be said

to aggricired by the endorsement Annexure–“A” so as

Vcallllin question the same’ by invoking the extra-

«Q

ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is

accordingly. rejected.

Sd/_

KS