IN THE HIGH COURI' OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE--. DATED THIS THE 3 18¢ DAY OF JULY, 200_8_ E: A BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T WRIT PETITION No 42555 ORQOO2 (S)iA ' BETWEEN : 1 VICTOR CHANDRA S/O s MAs1LA1v1AN1 A ~ A 51 YEARS 2 PRESENTLY wORIGNG'Asv1:>ERL,*'1fY MANAGER AND R/O MISSEQN COMEROUND S-HIMOGA__13ISTi._..i;7_ ' A (By Sri R NAO§§Nmi:A O AND 1 STEEL AmHOR:TY O1ra'Ii~IDrA LTD EEEEE A '. V REP?!) B3' 133 MANAGING DIRECTOR ENVGWEER AUf'rHOR1TY OF INDIA LIMITED BHADRIWATHI KsmMOOA D1ST " MANAGER AND _ EESECIPLONARY AU'I'I-IORITY V"'Sq'EEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED ~ . A 'BHAORAVATHI A ;sHIMOGA DIST RESPON&NTS. PE'I'lT}ONER. 2 (By sr: RAVI PRAKASH, ADV. ) THIS WP 1211.39 UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND--.227 on' THE CONS'I'I'l'U'I'ION, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT. 15.1.2001 VIDE ANN-F BY R3 DISCIPLINARY AND ANN-H DT. 6.3.2001. ~ THIS PETYPION COMING ON FOR. _ DAY, THE comm' MAIDE THE Fo:.Lo*.m§e:f.: _ A . 0RDERo oe" The petifioner is quee'u'.o§1ing file penalty of withholding age efiect as per Rule 43(B) (i) of 3/I$Le. Rules. 2. The point of time was working as Depiityé' in the first respondent
V compggrxy… a memo was issued to the
the Superintendent (Mechaniml) alleging that
on petitioner was not present in the
H V’ . 6-30 p.1:a. At about ‘7~30 33.111. there was a
‘ e44″‘V.:oajozf_.u’oi1..ble in the Electrode Driving Unit. The work was
.jj.’afi:ei1ded by the operation stafi. The petitioner was not
” in the departrment at 6-30 p.m. The petitioner’ was
advised to take full responsibility in the department andfl
./
‘j’
authority to reconsider the case afresh. The ”
authority after remand has confirmed title.’
disciplmaxy’ autho1’itY- Hence, tliiafietitifilbji it ” % i
3. Mr. Nagendra Naik, for the
petitioner submits that of ‘the does
not disclose that any and the report is
contrary to ttxetreeoiéds. enquhy report.
4.
5. It the order of enquiry report is
not Btiit, hoiiiever, that by itself does not mean
was in support of the charges
a case of no evidence. Indeed there is
_paueity cifexiidesice regarding the conduct of the petitioner.
the fact that tlw enquiry report is not
worded, that by itself cannot dilute the findings
it ig “reeexded by the enquiry authority. The disciplinary
u it authority has taken into consideration the over all oonduct
/
/’
of the petitioner and was of the opinion that withholding offl
one increment with cumuiative effect as penalty woukd
sufme. The appellate authority has considened.
and observed that the disciplinary authofity.A”‘i;V:fié. ‘–V%av,’
lenient view.
6. Having perused the orders4..Qas$’ed’byV *
am of the View that §_1a§ }No marit.
Scl/–
Judge