IN THE HIGH coum' 019' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF' JANUAR? '
PRESENTW=«
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE.V'AC}C)PAL,!§G€)Wii§A.:A :"i _
THE HONBLEzsg:R..rus'r:§:E§A.s.BO1>A:mA
WRIT PETITION m% lsézés-32?9?,2%29o9 (S--KA'i')
BEFWEEN:
AGED ABG'U.T'--6L3nYE.ARVS"'- «-
FORMER' 12.,;i*:.,C-1'C:~5 "
R/A1":Vc/c..JAcxx.1)EEs:a_ .
BEHIND 'Na:1*ARAJAA G:E.N.l§}RfAL grows
FIRST MAIN RGADVAV' _
SESHADREPURAM
BANGALORE'-»--+A 560 0:20 PETYHONER
9 R 1<UL1e;ki;1<¥:s:: :RAN15;CH}§N'D RA'
" ._('E's*.? SR': &§.*.{.NAR§ééiMHAN AND SMT. N S PRATHIMA,
'
zv K
1 .. VSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
-LRAILWAYS)
CITY RAILWAY STATION
BANGALORE --- 550 023
f2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF'
POLICE, RAILWAYS
5TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
KG. ROAD, BANGALGRE ~--~ 560 009
¥\\'L,/"
3 SFATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -- 560 001 :%i4fi0_;§0§iI0'E'2a9frs u
(BY SR1 B VEERAPPA, AGA)
mesa WRIT PETIT1oi€1S"ARE FILED 1U':s»11j:gR-V --AIS?'f'ICLE . '
226 85 22'? OF THE (:0NSrI*rU'1fI'0N 01?" 1.1_~:'mA PR_AYiNG TO
CALL FOR RECORDS PER'FAI.N_iNGx'fO T§iE.,_APPLICATION
NO. 353/ 2000 AND RE;v1:Ew"ApPL1.cAT10N N0; 15/ 2009 ON
THE FILE 015' THE ,.x;aRvNATA1<:A'~.,ADMINIs'rRA'1'1VE
TRIBUNAL, ANS PERUSE"T_fiF3' SAME;
These;"pe§.§Lfion$._ hear1n' g
this day, EV. passed the fo11ow'mg :
z"i'«1V1'e-- the order of the Kaxixatakzi
Bangalore dated 09.01.2009
i;;"1QAAp'V}:5};iti£if.io11 1810.353/2000 arid the review
A"'e:rxdA¢z}f%'¢1ae:5;;0A:s.4.2009 passed in R.A.No.15/2009 are 0
qa;esti0ne.éi by the petitioner in this writ petition seeking
.0 :0 the same Lmging various gonads.
2. In the erifinal appiication before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, the petitiener herein had questicned
the correcmess of the order dated 23.04.1998 imp0siI1g
\\/
the penalty of reduction in rank upon the
from the cadre of a Head Constable to V'
Censtable and its conf1rméfiiiOi1'« '_ »
respondent authority and *
government revisiona} authGI.it}* xia.ffiou}<:._ grounds.
Piacing smmg of the karnataka
State Police £Ru1es, 3965, it is
contended A 'vieiéieted against the
petitioneli Vaoeusation that on
13. Wadi to Raichur in 9
down”fizaifl. he entemd the ladies
eQ:jr1pa.1’tmeI1t check the luggage and snatched the
«geld of a lady, but she was not examined.
finding recorded by the Enquiry Ofiieer
ofi” apfiieeiation of evidence on record has heid that the
* mi_s-e61.1duct aileged against him is preved, the same is
“”–:<'1é1estiened as erroneeus in law and vitiated in law. The
V further comention urged is that theugh the statement 0f
the cumplainant We record:-"zd in the pIf€1i¥I}.i§18I'y
L,//
5
Diary and he could not have been at Raiehur Raiiway
Station at 4.30 p.m. at the fime of alleged incident.
Nomconsideration of ali these materia} evidetiee on
record either by the Enquixy Ofiicer or the
Auttloxity, the order of punishment is ltevsdgu»
as the finding recorded by ‘:Qfi3;eeI”
report holding that ehar’ge__. is; A
proved and accepted by 1g%utho1’it3r.
These aspects are ‘the Tribunal either
in the -»,AL:a;:ef§1ieéLtie11 or in the review order.
Therefot’e,_the liable to be quashed.
3. regard to the nature of the orders
«gs petition, wt; have directed ‘Std
Additional Govemment Advocate to
aeeept’ on behalf of the respondents. We heard
to aiee and dispose ef this petitien on merits at the
d of prelimlhexy hfiviniteelf.
6
4 We have very carefully examined the above said
legal contentions urged by the learned
S.V.Narasim.han on behalf of the petitioner
to find out as to whether the oijders =
writ petition warrants iI1t6I’f6Vi§CI1(‘:€e ..
exercise of our judicial revieW.V.P()Wer.– Q1J1″1%§§§i£7.CI’ $0 the V ”
aforesaid question is in the_ufnege.§ive . itbrivghgfi following
reasqns.
5. ‘:fhe«.ij;3iscipnna:y epmsedigigs were initiated
agairist = i ‘ He has submitted his
explaflaiieii sheet denying the same. The
V. \a;as.’e0:1r:’;_1ici;ed by the Dieciplinary Authority, as
‘ git’ wae4Vneti.i:ea£isfied with the expianation ofiered to {he
.’eiiaj’geS’.E:},fV.’:é.iii’ording an opportunity to the petitioner to
dei’endghi1e.self and 55 witnesses were examined by the
A 5.’ Ijieeipfinmy Authority to prove the charges. The
iéfinqiiiry Offieer on appreciation of the material evidence
on record recorded a finding ef fact holding that the
einarge levelled against the petiiienei’ has been proved.
iv
The same is accepted by the Disciplinary
after issuing second Show cause notice to __ef-%”_.__e1″e_
considering the explanation oifeifed, —
Authority imposed penalty of re’r.;iuc;’tioi’1 ii3._i*e.ti1€ ‘ffemfiie
cadre of Head constable offlie VP:01§eeii._Cens:ta¥o1e3V: ”
which order is afi”2m_1ed T. and
Revisional Autho1*itiy”;”~~V:'” of the
legal conteiitieiis the original
Tribunal in
exereise_’V with reference to the
reeorcisaeilaaetie it was of the View that the
o1;’tf_tei* emf passed against the petitioner is based
it evidence on record and fwther held that the
against the petitioner are proved. The
of the said finding is further examined by
i ” the ex’; the instance of the petitioner in the
petition filed before it. The Karriatake
‘HiAdII1iI}iStI’atiV@ Tribunal, after applying its mind with
reference to the rival lewl contentions urged in the
}t/
review petition rightly came to the conclusion: “the
finding of fact recorded by the Enqlliry
by the Disciplinary Aufl1ority,:’Appe11ai:e
the revisional authority are A.pro»;5ef.” -In of’
the foregoing reasons, we find’ te’
interfere with the sa1’§:1e_ in petitieii.”
Hence, _:i;§1__is péfitiep V.ise.’:’de1?{;i(}i”:’sbf merit and the
same is ”
Sri Government Advocate is
permitted to 51¢ Cfappearance within a period of
fourweeks frem”t0day.
33f-3}
Eudgé
AC}-:1 / bms