High Court Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metropolitan vs Puttaswamaiah on 3 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan vs Puttaswamaiah on 3 November, 2008
Author: H N Das
 i_,...V_...... .,. ............w. nlufl Luum or-' euumnmcn HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA Hi6!-§

 :3

u""» 'ggw@ga§2E E§EAL DIST.

m my 2:33}: 5:333: :35' mmmrmm, BANG.a;:.;c:.3.E

aayzg $315 was 3" Day' as NQvExB3nf2¢é$:*_

EE§{}F;E

$55 ¢m§*3aE xx. awsrxcz"fi;N.§HGAm¢$gg_QAs 5

wsg, §S.l2?Q3f2§fi?a{L;KSR§C}  'nE " 

."¥ET¥¥EEE€

§ar:a::za.L:3m rmmamnzwaw  9' 

TERREEQR? cggysngrzon-'

:<.H. fi.:.'2m,_  I 

RE? E? xfsfiagzgg $ga?E:c'EAm3aER

REF 3? 1:31 5:2? LAW QEFICER.
 ~~~~ .       PETITIGRER

":':3¥T3gT, § a RENGKR, AfiV.}

533:3:

 "  =,:AI~i

?a.~v§3a3a:aa
Egg-asguwiav EARS

:3. 'arm agyfimmm
$..E4;?.3}:~'é.._"'E*:'3:i-"Z', §'£GG'E'.P.x'3R.I: K0313
wzaxwaaamm "ram:

 REPORT
351' $31. 5. V. SHESTRI; .P;.DV.}
 '$35.1? E'ETITI€1'x¥ m E ILE133 UNDER'.
§.E.'E?E£E:ES 225 MED 22'? 52}? THE CQISTITTJIIGH OF
ZE°%"3I?L71'z PPAYH€'3 TO Q3338}! TI-IE fiJ#RP.I} FEW IN

Z.EE..'3.'€3i_'%'."i;3fE_fE.'?I."¥?'.'E2 QT. 5.2.288'? 'HIIPE A}~INE2'I.H.
FfiS5§u'3' B3' Tifi III AWL. LABOUR COURT;

3.'?-:.1'%'{§v,§'-;Zs EIERE ..
I ;..'__#,i\.



nu-an uuwnu Ur F\l'\l\I'l"II!'lI\P\ f'll\J'l'I \,._»I-gun: vi Iv-uxuvrur-|Iv-I nnzri uvun: 1.11"" I'Il"'|l\I'l"|ll"'|l\lI. nlwn uuwna Ur £\.Mlu1r-\Il-\I'\.H l"IEI.3l'! hUUKi U!' KRKNAIRKA HIGH I

@313 fiRIT FETITIQN COMING an  greR
?EEé£EEfi§3' fiEEElNG- :a~GRav?) $515 nA¥,f,fifiE
333$: 253$ :33 Ecznswzwer ~"~J.'u. 2

0 3 a 233 ~_ ?  '

En thia writ p$tifi£¢n the gatitibfiab ha$"

prayad far a writ in ;h§®gatu;e fifwcaftiorari
ta quash the a§a%a Vah§§§ [ég2fi2Da7 in ID
Na: . :22 ;2:3:§_2% .  §ags3éé2  'i:}ag ««.'j'Vg;;§k  Additional
iabauz €V §Qfi%€ °: §§.  $§gg§i@xa fiixaating
zeinstat§§%fi§fl¢f"fifiéphnflenfi with cantinuity sf
39r§§;g &§E §fifih%@g]fifi¢kwagaa &nd withhalding
af twmu£$:ze§e#§s"%£fih cumulative effect.

fly.

 wV--;;Th% ,zasgandent was appointed as a
4»ué:§:f&n the patitianer's Carporation an

1.i£§2§§5. Exam 27.6.1998 the respondent

*::Em&imed. unfiuthezizedly absent. Fur thia
“giseandaat af ‘unautharized. absence, articlafi

cf mhazgea weze isaued, enquiry wag held and

an 31.5.&§G& an ardar afi penalty came ta be

§a55$&.di8miaaing the resp¢ndent frem service.

3*”

—.-. _. .- -r……n …….i_…,’……. ‘IJT .\…w..-…-.m niuri L.uum Ur mmnmm s-new COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or xanmmca 5-nan

figgriaved by thia ardax af ysnalty of

éismiaaalg the reapondent zaiaed § &$&§fite

basrsczm 1:119 Laban: Gaurt in ID ~1é4{}£>.,3~_.;3;:2;?’2a’_’o}j2%”»

under Sactien 13 {4~A§ of the ID aqfi;f t-flwg

3.0:: the hafiiai t1{a._ the}

Labsux Gfiurt framad tha”f§1iawing fan: iaaues

far its aansifierati¢n£H-7J

;”*;,§a§§’th§g;§_@a:ty prave that

the ‘é%__i;y[ heifi }againBt the 1

p$zéy.fia3’§%i; and preper?

i>,E;§¢Qa gt Euxthar gxava that the
‘uu.£ H~§%:tj was a habitual
i f§fig§thm£iéed abfientee and his
“*Lafifi§i; ai dixmissal was just and

V’§g#§ér fax the pravad miscanduct?

3 . {mag the I party pxroves that
tag gxder af ddamissal passed by
the 32: party’ is fiispreportionate

ta the ailegsfi misccnduct?

$.15 he entitled fax an eras: of

reinatatement with. full backwagea

W”

fhfi wait petition ia”fiart1y&ail§k§d} Thej

imyagned awaré is madifi§& figfiyifig the fiéliéfi

mi aantimuity afi sar?i§é, 3 &fi’rém$ifiihg all
ather ayecta vthe ,1myfigfiéa awérd” remains

intamt. $rd$red’a¢c¢r&ihgly{a §

3lfil”\”\ IJt_”\nu ;..u…..- .