IN THE HIGH coma": OF KARNATAKA AT BANGgg;xf):=iigkT[
DATED mxs THE 27"' DAY 01? FEBR13;ARY1 ii)0£§A« T; " 5 ' «
BEFORE
THE HUMBLE.MRJUSTICESiaAB})fi?fi. %
WRIT PETITI0NN0.m3}43a005
Between:
Sri G.S. Basavarajaiah,
SEO Shivanna, _ " "
Aged about 55 , g
mo No.I029,.5'"Maii51,.';'. % *
3*" Block, 3"13tag¢; V
33113335?" ' 5_53 9.;79..- , _ Petitioner.
(By Sri 13;i2,,_ ;«'¥5i\r.)
And 4:; ' ~
A 1* F!9or;C42uver§,r Bhavzm,
11.6.' Bangalore --- 9.
rhechainmnandmscip1nmy.4umomy,
. , Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
_ 1" Floor, Cauvety Bhavan,
' l<..(}. Road, Bangalore -- 9. Respondents.
M (By Sri MS. Narayana, Adv.)
invited offiions holding ciiffe-rent designations
posts for fitment into regular
eeglaeleel aga,£n.~1n posts of Meter Readers, Second Division
:eleeeeeele.,e;, the extent of availability of the said posts. The
employees were to be alloww to work against the
This Writ Petitionisfiled under Articles 226 K 2
Constitution, praying to quashthe otler dated 29,}; ll f
bytlae respondents, etc. A’ _ l , ”
This Writ Petition coming on fegeeeieel deg, the
Court made the following: –.
The petitioner’ in the
year 1969 by end Sewerage Board,
Bangaloxe the year 1972, he was
regularised as e_ xareeeteeleeey e..eil~ee:ar dated 3.3.1930, the Board
as had passed SSLC were to be
“IE
H}.
1%
we
supemomerary posts till such time the permanent staffing pattern
was finalised. The petitioner exencised his option to be adjustedVcee’i’c._V_
3 Meter Reader. However, the petitioner was adjusted
Division Cierk though he did not opt for the seine. It.is”the:ceS’e:of,V it
the petitioner that he was not well conxiersagtte
which included additions he a
representation to the Board either Reader or
to continue as a. earlier. As the
Board did nottaice. he approached
this Court writ petition was disposed
of by this on .21 a direction to the Board to
accordance with law. However, the
of the petitioner. It is contended
that difficulties while working as a Second
as he is not good at Mathematics. Thereafter,
posted as a Cash Clerk at H T Counter, Vijayanagar
—- ll. The nature of the job involved is receiving the
‘ consumers at the {ash counter. He was postedto as a
cash clerk on 25.7.2000 and he has worked as such till 22.53%-){0I
(ie. for a period of 305 days). While he was ~ u
post, he was kept under suspension as per the
25.4.2001 (Annexure ‘G’). The diseip1i£iery«
Show cause notice as per Armexure ‘J’
that he has misappropriated a
respectively. The peiifioneriilias ‘K’ to
the said notice denying him. The
disciplinary to hold an
enquiry in Vagainst the petitioner.
Two of the management
in the has cross-examined the said
witnessesi._ “the material on record, the enquiry
l l eegeeeeieieieee a Qumexure ‘Q’) holding that the charges
.l-‘The disciplinary authority has issued a second
l _ dated 20.1.2003. Petitioner has sent a reply to
Jfl:.e said. cause notice as per Annexure ‘R’. On consideration
.llof;the’:lnaterial on record, the disciplinary authority has passed an
ll
i
order as per Annexure ‘S’ dismissing the petitioner fi’om
The petitioner has called in questiim the said order iIt_§ti’ti*.~t t
petition.
2. Sri rm. Rajashekhafavva,
the pen] ‘one! has made two fold, it it
contended that though petitioner deposit
day today basis, it was It is
argued that first of an, ;’3etitione_r_i:e
He wanted changeoi’ to by the
Board. The in the short claim
register _ iproceedings. Whenever
there are sho:.t_ of the Board is to issue
notice to the to make good the same. The
” «ioyees short rem2ttanc’ es at a later stage. Ihat
isi’how__a.1n”ctieei_ wits.-issued to the petitioner as per Armexure ‘C’
and the”–petéitioxtef deposited the said amount within two days.
__ a iiotice 31 Annexure ‘E’ was issued claiming short
remittances and petitioner has deposited the amount partiaiifiw
could not deposit the balance of Rs.l,O00f- because
proceedings were initiated by then. It ii
enquiry ofiioer was not justified in ixoadiiigiihe eseergee
been proved. The second limb of is
charges are held to be provecj, the
petitioner is highly in identicai
set of facts, in authority
has passed 3:5 punishment of
on R.Srinivas is
in wen Er ine State Govermnent dated
14.9.2001, Iheiefeg~e,. ,diem1esei “er the petitioner fiom service is
use connection, he has relied on the
Court in V1sHu:4NAm ms’. UNION or
i 11v2:i1;4}.e 03t?I$R;St–2oo7 (3) SUPREME 331.
3. other hand, Sri M.S. Narayana, learned Counsel
« iiappeari.’-gg e the Board has sought to justify the impugned meet. 1:
me
is argued that the misconduct cormnified by the petitioner is
in nature. Despite issuance of notice at Annexure ‘C’, A4
him the shod remitiances for 3 period fiem 3
17.11.2000, he has not corsected his ibrced’
Board to issue another notice at Annexsere ‘E’ 3
argued that the enquiry oflieer on on
recerd has held that the Coessdming
the report of the enquiry officee, ” has
rightly passed at} the service of
thegoa,-d_ V “””
4. I the arguments made by the
4._,Vl.ea1I1ed,.§’:.”«:$¥um:el perused the materials placed on
If: dispute that petitioner was working as a Junior
” wiiix the Board and as per the order at Azmexure ‘B’, be
% )1 as a Cash Clenk W.e.f. 25.7.2000 for the first time. The
Km.
first notice issued by the Board is at Annexure ‘C’
22.10.2000, which disclose that petitioner has deposited””‘shQgfi.i__j:ii.l’
remittances, which has been deposited within two ‘lief Z T
receipt. Again, a notice at Annexure ‘E’ was ismeii eh
claiming short remittances. Petitioner ‘ did not ciisimte ii
enquiry oflicer the contents of the it
he was not good at Mathematics his posting
has not been changed thatvvefiaiwcaeh ti$i’*.£ii2’it of Meter
Reader. On behelfi«….of:{i:he i ;e$wib;eeees have been
examined. elieited in the cross-
the petitioner is that it is
common for a to remittances because of the
giifrieeitieeei eaeb’ Tbe practice ofthe Board has been
to_ _ remittances in the shed claim register
_ and to issue notice at a iater stage to the
make good the short remittances. The fact
has faiifi to remit the cash received at the
cash en a day today basis. The domestic enquiry as been
it
K’
9
conducted by observing the principles of natural justice. -The
enquiry report reveals that it has comprehensively touched on aI1fr’»t.
the aspects of the matter. In my view, the enquiry it
justified in holding that the charges have been proved. _. .. V
6. In so far as the award of»pit_iiishxIieriti” is 3
punishment to be imposed must be
of the misconduct. kviolative of
Article 14 of the Coristituticn. of
punishment is of the
authorities, yet_ should not be
vindictive or to the offence as
to shock the cotizisciencev to conclusive evidence
ofhias. “well Aiiwhere the punishment shocks the
cc)n_scie:e<ceV of '{:'(fi)'fi»'a»."',t'.iI1 judicial review, they can net only direct
the to the punishment but might themselves,
to,*shortenii4" 1m.pos' e apipropriate punishment with cogent
.1 areasens thereof. iéé
11
Annexure-E because of disciplinary proceedings initiated by
Board. In an identical ease of a cash clerk (R.Sri:1iy;a’s’},’ A’
disciplinary authority has passed an order of 3 T
under Rule am) of the Karnataka Civil i(C£:z3§Q)’«–:{u!es,:_’_V is T 7
1957, which is clear from the copy of proziooed 3
application I.A.1f2008. The xto’ ernoioyee
therein is in conformity with the Goireriunent
dated 14.9.2001 wherein case of
ix Ito”: be awarded is
been issued to
maintain However, in the
case of the peiitioner, the authority has passed an order
__.of dismis{saiI.e*.In W3?! TH’s case (supra), the Apex Court
ywas -eeses of two persons involved in a scufile. Both of
rm The disciplinary amhority awarded
of increment for a period of two years
ciuzrxuleiive efieot in so far as one of the employee was
_ and the other employee was removed from service. The
13
respondent-Board is substituted by the order cmnpuisorily A’
him fi’om the service ofthe Board. ‘ H ‘ ‘%
(iii) In View of substitution ofthe fife.
above, the petitioner is entitled for 2:11
BMMx’2822009 g %