.. {Ad--1i1f.' E_&i.1cation Wing],
A. V 2AM ,SVB11i1-:,ii'I1g,..'_
'*«.V£%_at1gaiore~_§56Q (30 1 .
' ., _Thejf)i'rebtor,
" ¥' _ Ma_Ss ,Egi'ucati0I1.
W A N0.E E9-4/2008
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA1\%GALoRgx
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003-ii.' A'
PRESENT '' _ 2 A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. ,
& 1 .. % V
THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE K. i
WRIT APPEAL No: 1,1' 94/A2'O0é;'gsV{D.1s)
BETWEEN . jj
Sri Kamaraj,
8/ 0 C Kavalappa. _
Age: 60 years,
Second Division Assis--taA1"3-t. _
Shiraganga Vidya Pe_ete, Cj
Office of the District Adult '
Education Officer, ' _ i M
Mini Vidhana Soudha;-.._V -
Tumkur. ' -- V-
Appellant
(By 'K1-*1' , Adv' .V appeilant}
AND: ' V 1' 1' u
1;. V }T'n'e Principal Secrfjtaiiy,
Departnient of 'Education
Fa)
W A No.2 E94/2008
VI Cross,
Malleswaram.
Banga10re~»560 003.
3. The District Adult Education
Officer,
Department of Mass Education.
Mini Vidhana Soudha,
Tumkur. 0' A
(By Smt. A. D. Vijaya, Addl. G A, for respondents)" ' -3 A
This Writ Appeal is filed under Secti0n=4 of the.VI{ar_”r;ata:1staVVI~iigh
Court Act, 1961, praying to setiddasidei—tii1e c):i9(ier..Lvpassed in W P
No.4353s/2004 dated 27.s;2Q08.g””‘*–If ” ” ‘°
This Appeai cp1i1ii_1g::»sn_p_ fof_–..,__;’prei’i’n1ina_ry hearing this day,
Gopalagowda, J., delivered fol._10v\fi1§g: .
2’ gs, Jgi’J”DGMENT
The correctnespsidof learned Single Judge dated
27.3.2008 in “U.\”frit’Petiti0n and not interfering with the
orde14”;1:g.1ted.Apassedvdddhsivthe disciplinary Authority, which is
gnodifiedi :en¢p,s.;;;5.e;:¢¢1;eAiuthomy dated 28.10.2002 and affirmed
55,2 Revisionai a;u~t1ti'(ivrity dated 19.1.2004 is questioned in this Writ
urging Vai*i.Qt:s grounds.
V
W A No.1 1943008
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has sought to justify
the order of the learned Single Judge contending that the
penalty is passed by the Disciplinary Authority dernjoting:
Second Division Clerk to the lower post and’ erecoiferyllyloifli.
appropriated amount mentioned above
suspension as suspension, after conducting a valid’ enquiry.._p’roviding A’
fair and reasonable opportunity. to the—-la”ppe’llant.lhertfiillnand the
Appellate Authority has modif’icl{1.. reducing the
punishment to the minirnurn payscale years from 5
years and withholding; ilclulmulative effect by
its order dated rightly affirmed by the
Revisional authority cf-the revisional power, which
orders are affirrned the Judge by recording reasons.
Therefore, sheésubniits thatlthe lsarne does not call for interference by
this Couri; ofits appellate jurisdiction and power.
7;: _ After illiearingl “-“learned Counsel for the parties, the
::3lu’b,mission*niade learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant
ythagtfipropositiori ofpenalty is one and imposition of penalty is more
” what is proposed in the show c se n ‘ e, is vitiated in law as
W A No.1 194/2008
it is a major penalty under the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Therefore, though
the Appellate Authority has exercised the appellate jurisdictioryhe
has modified the punishment as indicated above, but
is also vitiated in law. The same thing is done
authority. Hence, the orders impugned
sustainable in law. The learned Single Judgethas not–“.i.noticed*.
infirmity in the orders crept in, as contended by the the
Writ Petition. The learned Single iindings of the
disciplinary authority and the of the
funds of the Department’; has declined to
exercise his Xlihit.-Petition. The learned
Single J udge firelevant important aspects
that the Discipiinaxy to impose the proposed
penalty of WithhOldi(lg’vQi1Ef_ai11CI’éii1CI1t with cumulative effect and
recovery Contrary to the said proposed
punish;rnent,..Vthe”pu.nishrnent of imposition of reduction of some
inpcrementslh of the in the pay scale for 5 years is bad in law.
Therefore, appellant is justified in approaching this Court seeking
for.ytheV.reIiefsy_.as indicated, supra.
‘V
W A No} E94/2(}08
8. The appellant/employee already retired and he has already
paid the amount of misappropriation to the Department, as
by the Disciplinary authority and remanding the matter, ‘
Disciplinary Authority to re–do the matter in_ter:ns of it A’
notice regarding the proposed punishmenthis ;=i:ot’iVre’quired.
regard to the nature of the misconductalieged and provedi the v A’
appellant and he has proposed to imp0S_¢_l:
of one increment with cumulative it recovery of the
misappropriated amount, .We by the
Disciplinary Autho1’__i_t.y.§’*… penalty by the
Appellate Authority with cumulative
effect. _ — — –
9. Hence,”~.’tph’e_ Writ .oAppicali’a…ig’fidisposed of with the above
observations. – -_
The 3″‘,respondent’is* directed to consider the claim of the
appellaiit for’r’–terrfiinal.pbenefitswdand other consequential benefits as
‘We have Vsetll “tVhe_v”_punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
M/Aui:i’1ority, ‘Avvuhich. ‘modifie Appellate Authority, by
Bjs
W A No.1 I94/2008
substituting the penalty. as indicated above, the same shall be paid,
if he is entitled, within two months from the date of receipt..Vo’f.<lthis
order.
(E
IUDGE.