High Court Karnataka High Court

M D Ravikumar vs The Registrar(Vigilance) on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M D Ravikumar vs The Registrar(Vigilance) on 1 September, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:2' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18*' my 09* SEPTEMBER, 2910

PRESENT

THE HON'BL}33 MR. J. S. KI-IEHAR, (31113? ;:%Us i_i'1L§::E:  &  

AND 

THE HONBLEZ MRS. JUST_I_CE MANs.J{§LA --%;::i:};'L:.1j§;1é' A

W.P.NO.17292 C)FT_'201O  %%
BETWEEN:     

M. 3:). Ravikmnar   
S/0 M. H, Dodeiaiah   
Aged about 42 ytr3.a1':«:_ 
Process Server  _ 
Court of Civ'iiL}U,_dgt:"(11&T,r. '£)jn_.)"r   _  V
Maddur A       « 
ResidiI1g~a%i"No,V'f' 

I Iviain Rgad, -3\/Iéi1*u.%.IfiiVEx«v%.éi1$__ic>n
Gandhi Grama' '  
SI'iramapura3;r1~ - , .-
Ba:r1ga1o1fe--56@ ()2? V 

. . .PE'£'iTIONER

% (By 35:4 Mg  shaiifendra, Advocate)

   Magidya

  1 if   

1.

Wigilance)
High Cioéufl; ef Karnataka

xfiangawe-560 001

T%2′.V’–.’Th_é’A.éP1’incipa} DiStI’i{:E Judga

8;; Di:s(:ip1i:1ary Authority
. . RESPQNDENTS

” “(By Sri. B. Veerappa, AGA)

This Writ Petitictm is flieci under Articies 226 and 1227 of
the C»()i’1$tIit11§ZiOI1 of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari
to quash tbs order dated 12.1.2010 bearing N0. H”V}’7B £325 a
4 /200? Vidfi Annexure-13′ wiith further directiqn _’~.t_'(?:-~ the
responcients ta reinstate the petitisnex’ into se1*v:ig:e__a11€1L.t;} “pay
ali conssiqtlential benefits, ir1c:1L1din.g mexxetaifi’ h$*neEiif§95’é”* ‘ .

This Writ Pt”-:titi0n. coming 0I1_.f,0r L4

this day, Mar1juia.CheI1::zr J., passed’ thé ‘fo11Cwir1g; 2 ‘ .

onnmné

…..___…………._..

The: writ petitioner wais ‘H:§§é:¥’ver
Civil Court, Macidur. n V’ ” V’

2. The admitted facfi arc:

The petitiQf2éi:§;:T.fi%«*Va$ server in the
year 2001 “‘(j’1v§cf:}$;a1′{=:c1 on 8.6.2804. On
1,3.2.20o¢3; have of ten days. He
was to re%§c1:!t”tfio but he ren1ained absent
from dgty .§3.Q.2006. Ultimately, articles of

i:ss}1ed’V£fi”iéV{5.9.2006 alleging that the petitieriear
186A and ms of the Karnataka Civil
$erVié’e%5 (fir short ‘R1.1Lies*}. The Principal Civil Judge
..DI__’1.).. JMFC, Maédur was the inquiry officer and a
this regard was submitted on 16.12.2006 hoiciing

V ‘ V’ :’_”:t,i;e:’é2;ppeI1:;1:1t gL1i1t}: of the charges ieveiied against. him.

3. £:3a.s;<-3d on the regort of the inquiry Gfficer, the
Discipiinary Autiiority in I1).E.N0. 1/ 2006 iITlpOS€d penalty of
dismissal fmn1 service with iinmctdiate effect. AV.~'statutory

appeaii came to be filed. wherein he ::0nter1de5:i.__iii3f:"§i'6. was

given no opportunity of being heard, theI1;6:’::b§§t_%*fcfi£ai£§cr3′;abseI1ce {even after
issuance 01: fE§§§ccpt appearing on one
single choose to appear befcre the
inquiry. to turn back with the deibncc of
z1ot opportunity. Inspite of call 11or,ice, he
Inspire of the adjournment 91″ 11116 iflqlcliljf,
\%zit.:i.1.i:: of the ilctitiorzer, he did net choose to
these facts would only indicate that he was not

A C_1cii_1ig{‘:-pit either in his duties as process scrvcr or ts defend his

case in the i:1qz1i:”;:.

4. The duty of a process server is a very very important
one in the admifiistration of justice.

; The proper functioning of 1:116 system depends upon the

33

employees who are part: of the entire judicial sySt§§1r;, The

disappointing conduct of tha petiticner Z”10t _ éa:s’?!_’§$C:ed

him personally, but has affected 113;: depz*J*t1r1–%§I}t;”i1:i Whiiifi’

was to discharge his dufies. ‘C-if théév ”

petitianer indicates I101″;-V’V d§vo1;_’iV’§:tsf.i§;:”)t’; the said czspinion.
AcCe1;Ci_i11gly,’V f dis121issed.

sd/- t
….. Chiei Iushce

sa/-;__
Judge