IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 10" DAY OF NOVEMBER~'2'§'§$'VV«' % A
BEFORE I
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE A:¢AM)fTB'¥¢xAR:é,1}23$% 7
WRIT PETITION No.3} 174 (:a=%2ao3 r$;»itg$) I %
BETWEEN: L
STE. '1: Mahcndran, 52 ye;n~:§ ]" %
Sic Late Sri C Tangaveiu T V V V
Assistant Adn1ini$£1?:s.§iv¢ Ofiiceifi
Natic>naIVvInst::7a;i};>e
Limited; MissiOn .'-'E:;ad.M * ~.
(New illegafiy tiisriiissérd '
Service)' and Residing. at"No;' .28
Ex-c}1;%;inn3.n Laj,3t3:1£
" "'DO<i%i;i'B:::sa53v3"adi ' '
}3:;i3§;aIc;rg;4S{5€)V(3=13 PETITIGNER
Senior Ad voceztxs)
' Naiionai Insurance:
. Ctsmpany Limimd
Tifieprescnied by the
' V' Chairmanand
Managing Dirtzcivr
No. 3, Middlgmn Street
PI). BOX No. 9229
CaIcu£la~--700 071
2. The General Manager
Natisnal Insurance
Company Limitsd I
No. 3, Middleton Street
P. O. Box No. 9229
Calcutta-708 071
3. 'I'I1c15sssia:£aI:iGcneral fvfizguagxtr " _ V
National Insurance Cempaxzy ; " '
Limited, No. 3, Middlclon" N
Street, P.O.B0;{No. _ - "
Calcutta-70{}?_'*T)73':jL'§.-' RESPONDENTS
(By Shri:’1v..AD.’–~;:k_:ii=x:5c%~1[e for Respondents Nos. 3 –~ 3)
*_ vskss
under Ariicics 226 and 227 of tin:
A” hf Ind§éi””‘§3§*aying ii) quash (I) the Order dated
by the Assistant General Manager of the
Naiifiizal Cmnpany Limitesd, ciismissing the petitioner
1 V -Vfium iéizic Amltzxiznt G and (2) Order datczd 16-12.2802
by s the Gentral Managar of the National Insurance
V’ T:.C;;§:!{3¥§Ahy Limited, dismissing the appeal filed by {he pc{iEi{}l’}<:1'
vidé: Anflexure K as the said order:-; art: arbifiary, caprici.<.ms,
V V ° .ii're1iiunal and unjust apart from bczing in viuiatitzn of the principfcs
91' naiural justice.
Z»
3
This Wfil Fciiiiun earning on for Hearing_;ih’é$.A’VV:§.;§}}V;’
Court made {ht} fulluwing: –
ORDEgmW
Hm; Shri.Subba Rem, St;nit3.r Advkggm app¢a;ing%
pciifioncr and (ht: Cmmstsl for £he”rt§§p1)nd¢$ni5,V
2. The facts aI.'(}H§.:§,\N§S£A””” 1′ ”
The petiliuncr is an He: had
juined thy: ;3£”_V{ieVr;Ti*u*:s§f3e3nc£tti1£in the year 1979. He bcknngs
to the AV1;f¢131gi11.::§niiy. He was pmnmtcd to the pest
of Advfn”i’;*:i:sV1;fgiivc Ofikzer in the year 1996. It is the
that he was falscfy accused of demanding and
aétsrigiiiéngv gratification 011 7.9.1998 ofa sum 01′ Rs.l,C300f’-
her Was pfacad under suspcnsiesn. Thensafttzr, criminal
“pfr%)$t:é;’§«1ii@n was iaunchcd against, him in Spwial Case in
3 f c.:;?.Nu.13s;;992 befurt; the Court {if m: Additienal City Civil
‘ and Sam-iiuns Judge and Spcciai Judge: for CE] cases, BéiIlg3l{}i”t:_
Hz: was found guifiy and sentenced £0 undcrgu l”i§g£3!”t}ll3
5
as
having been set aside by a judgment 01′ {his Cuuri inuC:fi’in.iriaI
appeal NQISSIEZOOI in lhti month of Fabmary of
having regard [0 lhc time prescribed {Q bpmfcfa’ “Lcai_xi:.:”
Petition having cxpirai in this month ‘ {.31}:
Counsel for the respondents li1aliiav:Sp;:ciai”I,,t;avg; ivfifiufldfif’ V i
prcparaliorl and the same hays iisiiwheliy’ imsticivani. The
order 0f the Special Ciiurt iiiiaéirigi by a judgmtsni of
this Cc-uri in the petitioner is
{ht-:rcI’ori2__il1t: _z:.:iefi{‘<ivi'«v¥i§é'r: judgment of this Cuuri in the Criminai Appeal
aiitzijiiiie this period prcsuribcd for challtmging the: same.
i ii 4.7. Accordingly, the writ pciitiiin i3 ailewed. Amicsxures
are: quashed. The respomienis are dircciesd to rt:insia.t¢:
ii pciiliuner and gmrik ail consequential benefits pursuant lhereio.
The respondcrzls, however, 313331 cumpiy the same: within a period
3
uf thmxs weeks from the date: if receipt of a ceriifififi
urder. It is unnecxtxsary £0 ubscrve £ha{“if’£he rrzspsmkiexgis mée iii-Va
pusiiion to ubtain further sanders fmm (i”:t_: Sggptvme ;’3u;*$~:;ais!u
to {he trnicrtainmcni of the ‘Leave “F:;v:l.’ik{.’.”1i21, Qouid beV
open for the pciilioncr lo» 56% , L’ ‘ ~– _
Sd/-.-3