IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 PRESENT i"d'° TI-IE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF AND THE HONBLE MR.JtJ$TI(5E_ 9' WRIT PETITION BETWEEN: 9' SII1t.GayatrideVi K. Judgment Writer - Aged about 4+O4}A"3.«'irs 2: » Labour C0'L11't'i:__V;". Mangaioire;-97:, 9:3: ...Petitioner . A it (By. .AdVo(:ate) AND; _ V' ,1 . Court"'0f'Karnataka ' = By Registrar (Vigilance) 2.' Ts§finci;$.fa1'i}..--i5'istrict & Sessiions Judge And». Diiscipiinary Authority 2 V. 99 'Hsssan. ...Responden1:s (By Sri B.Veerappa. AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and V 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash vide AnneXure--F dated 19.6.1998 issued by R2 and """~r*""i€'Mz'9v Annexure-H passed by the R1 dated 28.1.2004 and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential
monetary benefit flowing from the quashing of the above
orders including the award of costs.
T his Writ Petition coming on for final
day, Chief Justice passed the following order;:._
J.S.KHEI-IAR. C.-J. (Oral):
The petitioner is Va._V_°’Stenographer,_ ‘was-V
employed in the Sessions Qiv-isi’on,’-~.Hassan.,.During the
course of her dated
25.11.1996 statement of
imputatiorils charge–sheet is
being it 6
1 .9 9 1 +€rhei._. A-:1ci.1.Munsiff and J.M.F.C (11
Court}.’°I-‘lastsan, in his [).O.Letter No.2/96
“Dated 16/ 11/1996 has reported that at
ab’ou_t 10.50 A.M. you entered into chamber
«and asked the Presiding Officer why you
have ordered for issue of memo in respect of
– ” attending in framing of charges and
1′ .”§–p1’eas in C.C. 1586/93, 1154/95 and 4541/94
~ on 14/ 11/1996 and you further spoken that
‘”the Add1.Munisff. Hassan, acting at the
instigation of District Judge” and that you
know what to do and how to give reply to the
memo. This amounts to serious misconduct
on the part of Srnt.K.Gayathri Devi,
Stenographer.
You are in the habitual in insuiting the
Presiding Officer whenever Work entrusted to
you and when the same is not attending in
the stipulated period, for instance your four
increments have been with–ho1d with
cumulative effect in DE. 1/96.”
2. T he petitioner submitted a reply to the
charge–sheet on 21.12.1996. After the
the departmental enquiry, the”ddidscipiinaryhi”authority
inflicted the punishment of stoppage of
with cumulative effect on thejpetitioner;”yide’°»an” order
dated It1e.i998.’rhe«;xaru§fi¢r firefiured an: appeal
against the order passed authority
which was 1€iy’th’e.:’a–ppe.1.}:ate authority on
28lJ26fl@*Q$’w y _
the orders dated 19.6.1998
and 28.112-Q04, VVth_’edpeti:t=ioner approached this Court by
= presentwrit’ petition.
_V ~TIp’he”-..fi_rst contention advanced by the iearned
uddcountsei’ petitioner was, that the entire enquiry
–V proe’eeding”sv stand vitiated on account of the fact, that
ddfidufring the course of the Departmentai Enquiry
‘ conducted against the petitioner. the petitioner was not
permitted to lead any evidence in her defence. Referring
to the rules of natural justice as also the mandate of
provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution India,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for
that the enquiry conducted “against_7’th’e:’.’;petiti’onerll”
cannot be said to be reasonabie1’_’_’as’l shed”
deemed to have been affordlevdia reasona1:;l’ev_o’p;portdnity”Vit
to defend herself, and as “_the~»..sarne”ioliaioie to be
set aside. ‘4 V A
5. We; iirst contention
advanced the petitioner on
the issltiel l an opportunity of
leading’-ei/idence”‘iii._llher”defence. In the statement of
irnputations, thepcategoric stance of the respondents as
:.”=__!Vi’depic’te:dl..in:’paragraph–8 is that the petitioner having
sufficient opportunity, did not adduce any
evidence’; .V’l;hat apart, we have perused the appeal
by the petitioner against the punishment
dated 19.6.1998. Although, the aforesaid appeal
was exhaustive wherein the petitioner had raised all
legal objections which were open to her, it was no where
her contention that the enquiry officer had not
permitted her to lead evidence in her defence. it is
therefore, not possible for us to accept the*~._i’irst
contention advanced by the learned counééel .
petitioner.
6. The second contention advanced
counsel for the petitionerll.v\’fa.s, that
inflicted upon the petitionerhighly.disproplbrtionate
to the charges levelled her. it was
sought to presumed for
the sake ltlheipipetitioner was guilty of
the was extremely harsh
for to inflict the major penalty
of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect on
. her,
apparent from the statement of
impiltaitiolis which have been extracted hereinabove,
it that the charge levelled against the petitioner is of
internperate behaviour. The statement of imputation
“Valso discloses, that another departmental enquiry on
M
–_…–o
U
account of similar behaviour of the petitioner was
pending against her. In a separate order passed by us
today, while disposing of Writ Petition No.2()22v~/ll/:’iZ_:»0’l*1._V(),
accepting the plea advanced at the hands
counsel for the petitioner, a1tho_u.gh__thefpunishment K”
stoppage of four increments with cumulativie
been inflicted upon the petitioner, ordered V
to be reduced to sto.ppage——VVof.tvao i.ncreme1}1ts with
cumulative effect. offitémilar Q
behaviour at petitioner. Having
examined mtoltialiiy of the facts and
circurnstaiiceshfi the statement of
imputat.ions the petitioner, we are of the
viewpthat the’puVnish_ment inflicted upon the petitioner
5[jthe,.\—r.:di’sciplin’ary”authority cannot be termed as
to the charges levelled and proved
.. 8;”-‘Thus viewed, we find no merit even in the
second contention advanced by the learned counsel for
“the petitioner.