IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20% BAY or' OCTOBER" 2r;>6;9''v 1/
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE; I
WRIT PETITION NO.14E)_66 dF:2.dos :s4xsm~;;; *
BETWEEN
M VEERABHADRAPPA'
s/o. MUNIYAPPA ' "
AGE 43 YEARS ..
ASST. LAW OFFICER '
KSRTC, R/A1fNQ.';-13/is I ~
BDA PLOTS, QUARTERS V '
BTM V
BHENNERC&HATT.Rc.AE .. ' '
PETITIONER
{BY SRE. M C' BASAVARAJU. ADV)
AND:
V. 1 MPd\EAGING.D_IRECTOR
KERTC, CENTRAL OFFICE
I " 'E T I{RO1\D, BANGALORE.
OF DIRECTOR
§£SR??{i, CENTRAL OFFICE
H KEROAE, BANGALORE
REPBY ITS SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS
‘{13f’..sR1. R I D’SA, ADV)
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 8: 227
‘HIOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
M
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DESCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
DATED 28.8.06, VIDE ANN-G; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL.HEA-“RING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE OOURT
FOLLOWING:
An Assistant Law Officer th0e”resp_o1:1de_ht_
Transport Corporation when issue-dwith a.”.;s.hovv Cai1se’–..L
notice dated 9-3-2004 a:10eg;agt;;a{wh11e V
discharging duties atufiolafl 055-2000 to
27-10-2001, failed to and0’se;o§:re the records
from the fgecjctioij the same to the
Advocate; 00 “Corporation suffering an
adverse order. an expianation dated 24-04-
blaming the counsel for the
‘ €’}o1=porgtti0’11’for not furnishing a copy of the claim
statementf’j_so’ as to secure the connected records and
prepateihe counter statement. The Deputy Law Officer
A stthtnitted a report dated 16-6/7-2004 Annexure–“C”
0 stating that on account of non–fi1ing of the counter
M
statement and production of record or evidence in
1.o.No.49/2000 in the case of c. Pyre Jan, Condtiictosj,
K.C.No.1095 of Kola: Depot, the Corporati.:onl:st1’ffe1’e_d
an adverse award. The Disciplinary
the opinion that there were grouiildspto inclttire
allegation of misconduct, is’sI;1″ed an ‘Articltes “of charge V
dated 19/23–08–2004t_ tel’t’wtt1eh the
petitioner subrnitted 6-09-2004
Annexure–” ,4 l lthweafecords relating to
more traceable by the
%¢_c1:_j(‘):.’/vltivlltiespite repeated requests
and heme, the’v.iilep’in_4cplestion was not submitted to the
Cotirt. 0. In aciditioln, the petitioner asserted that the non-
the records was due to the failure of the
forwarding the claim statement and that
the awvardfin the particular case was passed on 15~O2–
‘*2:O.Q3,l”’16 months after he ceased to be the Assistant
Officer of Kolar Division. The Disciplinary
2 “‘”Authority, having considered the explanation to the
M
show cause notice and the reply to the Articles of
Charge being of the opinion that the failure
and secure the records from the l)efau1t«.__2Sejet.iond
respect of I.I).No.49/2000 and fi,irn”ish:_ the; itoihe.
Advocate on record, leading to the lawardfysettingvv
the orders of punishment, exhibited Iac_k*of devotion to V
duty, a misconduct fc§Vf”th”e KSRTC
Servants (C & ,1;/973{:d._erder dated 28-
08-2005 punishment of
withholding’ cumulative effect.
The said order was rejected
by orderudjated Hence, this writ
petition,
‘ VA the post of Assistant Law Offieer
petitioner enjoins a duty to ensure the
reco1’d.s_A’1~relating to legal proceedings before Court are
available to the learned counsel so as to effectively
pvpdefend the case of the Corporation. The failure on the
t*’\
5
part of the petitioner to secure the records and make
them available to the learned counsel, though one of the
duties and responsibilities attached to the of
Assistant Law Officer, admittedly. the passin,g’on’_~
blame on the Learned Counsel for the £91».
not furnishing a copy of cl-aii’nl4″atstatenient
contended in reply to theshow lcause
explanation to the Articles ofl”‘eharge far fetched
and unacceptable. Vit:7wasL t’he Ailptettitioner to have
secured the claim statement” fifonf’the:?1earned counsel
and :vpre_pai*e’c{ _.__tl1e gcounte’_r statement or parawise
remarksV.on.the=_t5asis_ offecords, without which the case
of_thet..co1;pcration could not have been effectively
This very statement is sufficient to
dereliction of duty and the failure to
su.f;’erVtse”and secure the records from Default section,
‘ir1t..1fnesVjVoect of I.D.No.49/ 2000 and furnish the same to
‘thellearned counsel.
.9 5
#\,.
3. The punishment of Withholding one increment
without cumulative effect being a minor punishmVe»nt,_V_in
the light of the unacceptable explanation to..tiie .
the decision in ANKAPPA one
K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE (ILR 719956 is iiacsé
no application.
4. Having exaI”I;ined.vtt’th’e{‘;oift1ers impugned. no
exception can be taken~i-‘to findings and
conclusions at by Authority and
the Writiivpetition is without merit
and .
sa/..
JUDGE
KS ‘