if Co's re,c.':{eo§
Vicig,
Cmhambe-5
0'TC£Q:6'
dHw\q.n.u8
'
Qsrvsq)
§i3DGqE
IN THE HIGH CQER? OF KAR§A%AKA fj'tf\
CIRCUIT BENCH AT 9aARwA§fi "
DATED THIS THE 3?" flay my SEQTEMBER 2G§$
THE HON'BLE MR sjsfzcg v;¢;éAB3&H:T
igfi3; ',_
THEAfiON'BLE_MR,JUS$ICEVS5§fiTYANARAYANA
' 1w; Nb :9§$ C? 2005 {SK}
BETwfi3N.ff ""
DHAN¥AKUMAR,G~KZVA@E'-
AGED.51 YEARS ".'
s/o;sULAB'cHANu."V
R/Q.DR,a;B.3AJJAMNAvAR BUILDING
4§PRABAT cQLoNY,'HUBL:
.. _____ . . . APPELLANT
iayfiaézxywfis G.R.AN§AN:MATa, S.S.NERANJAN AND
'Mz$;sU3aAkA0 & CO. ~ ADVS.}
', ANn.§
K.5,RN35:TAK§X S?}§'E'EZ. ROAD TRANSPORT CORPCBREKTEQN
"RcENTRaL GFFICES, K H ROAD
°BANGALGRE~27
REP BY ITS MEJAGING BIRECTOR
. . . RESPONDENT
(By Sr: J.M.i§MEZSi°§ MURTHY 5: L.GGVINBR}3xJ- }7&§3V8.E
WRIT RPPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE Kf–“-;RNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAEENG TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED :nJ THE WRIT PETITION No.23:4?%i§§9 D egp
24/5/2005. .i ‘win ‘ L
THIS WRIT Appzfii, coMIme~@fie’£ifi: aeaeime
THIS DAY, sABHAHIeW–J., ,BELIVER£DH reg;
FOLLOWING:
VeLJQDGMHT’.if5Rv%
This apfieai iemfiiee by the éetitioner in
w.P.NO.23247/Qfiieeiefi 駧§i¢§ed by the order
dated *2§j5.éQ0§* wfié§ein~ fine writ petitien
filee ef {fie géfiifiieneyg challenging the order
¢f””hige%§§§m§$g§; _ef£er helding’ disciplinary
efiquiry}_iieQnfifmed in appeal, has been
_eonfi:med-anfl-whit petition is rejected.
u”ie?;_§he writ petitioner was working as a
‘,iDiVisiQnal Controller ef Bi’a a: division of
. , 3
-J-u
reSpondent–CQrporation frem 23.6.1992 go
i’, ?.1.i§94. A notification was issued for
eelection fie the post of drivere on 4.1.1§92
and subsequent1y'<directions were issued fer
appointment of drivers an temporary basis an
\9Q$
the wzit petitiomeg is befere thieefieurt in
this intra Court appeal. J .u._ ,
3. We have heard the $eerned’%e0unee1
agpeerinq fer the Vafipelient. and fiearmeda
couneel appearing fore’ the_*.£ee§e§Qent–
Corporation.
e. The leafeed_eQunsei fer the appellant
sfibmififietfi the: the appeilant was not afferdefi
Smff;eiehtW,’ope;temit§r during the enquiry
proeeediegs.} ‘The dieeipiinary authority bee
” net _ceneide§ed the contentions raised in
Ve:eepenee t0 the shew cause notice ieeued and
“theeepeeii:e cententioes raised to the effect
tfietv the selection list made by the writ
A:°g§etitioner has been accepted and appointment
erders have been issued to all the caedidaies
as recommended by the petitioner as the
Chairman ef the Selection Committee and
wherefere, the irregularity, if any, has been
yaw?”
.,%/
condoned by’ the Cerperatien and the lquantum
of punishment is disproportienetei¥ten*the
irregularities found tewhavefbeesfprevedpandx
ordering dismissal ef the writ<§etit1ener_is.
liable te be seth aside "anéi the "Ap§ellate
Authority has also eomfiited the same mistake.
4. On the §thé§75gfia; tie learned counsel
for the ressoneenteberseratien, sumbitted that
suffieieneiefiéggfiehity has been given te the
agpellane a§;;ag the eisciplinary enquiry and
all. «the E§®nt§htions raised have been
eQesifier&i_hy the Sisciplinary Authority and
lih;.appeal “ales, all the Contentions raised
l’u:he§eLWabeen considered by the Appellate
r_fiutherit§n and the mere fact that the
resfiendent~Cor§oration has issued appointment
l ,_e:ders to all the candidates including the
persess who were wrongly selected. According
to the resposdest–Corperatios, as per the
charge frameé against the petitiener would not
K9,)?’
in any way affect the irregularity eemmitted
by the writ petitioner as irrefielaritiee were
found after the appeintment Verdefiee;were;
issued.
5. We have given anxious eeneideretion to
the cententieng of the ieerned counsel for the
pazties,
N6L_Et is eleaf item the perusal ef the
Zmatéfigi cfi1.recoej-including tins proceedings
before the diecieiinar eneuirt that there is
2 M , z: 1 )7
_ne fiE£it~5in7 the contention of the learned
taeeueeel fee” the appellant that he was not
t-attordee. sufficient epperutnity in the
disciplinary enquiry. The materiai en recerd
weeld clearly’ show; as rightly” field by’ the
flflearned Single Judge, that sufficient
opportunity has been afferded to the appellant
and the enquiry held by the authority is just
and fair. However, it ie ciear from the order
passed by’ the disciplinary” auteorityt dated
‘1V§\,\j§ ‘
10
8.l€.”}.Ii§98 as aiscs fihe order the
Appeilata Authority dated 3.5}:993 éEabH the
sgecific contention zéigedflin:thé<;§§iy"giuefi*
to the Disciplinargg auth@§3fiy* '3fidV* the
contention raised ifi,the*app€al Hfimo befcre
the Appellatg ,Afith¢r£:y tfiai all the
candidates seleciwi by ffifi appellant as the
Chairman ef fiha Saleéfiigfi Committee have baefi
appzéVéd "a3d"gappgifiiment orders have bean
;issuéd§_ oh' ,26,3,l993 and wherefoze, tge
igfiegulaxiiyy ugf "any, has not affected Ehe
_ validity ~Gf afipointmentT of candidates since
€fiey" have W$een du1yT appointed a3 per the
V KéCQmfi€Rfiati0fi made by the appellant, has not
been ¢Gmsidered by the Discipiinary autharity
égfl the Appellate Authority.
?. The above said cantention is material
in this case as, all the charges said to have
beam preved pertain. ta irregularity in the
selectimn of candidates. if thare wafi
as/”
I2
8. There is emrit in the ebefie referred
contentien of the learned coensei* fd:~ the
appellant and te that extent the e§@ef_§esee§ut
by the learned _SingIe ,Juége thee? to aee
modified.
9. There ie-ee ¢é:1:;:e the contention of
the 1eereee.ceeneei fet tee eppeilant that the
ordeitieE{?3ie@iSeel,jie2 liable to be quashed
withgefiitefiittifie t5e”emtte§ in View of the
decision ef the Hen’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeel we 586?/reg? (KSRTC W xx;-~ sneee RAMA
g’R5e£y} déteew21.3.2oe3 and the decision of the
‘”u31y:s¢§h.eench cf this Court in WA NG.8G88f§6
“eateéf15.?.i997. It is Clear frem the order
upaeeed by the Hoe’bie Supreme Court in KSRTC –
AA”=ys W SHREE RAMa. REDDY’S case that the said
decision is not helpful to the appellant in
the present caee having’ regard to the fact
that ie the said case, the Hen’bie Supreme
Court found that the delinquent employee did
\;;/3
thazeaft&r,
with law.
pas$
15
fresh. ord%rs,min w