High Court Karnataka High Court

S R Prakash S/O Late Rangaiah vs Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore … on 5 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
S R Prakash S/O Late Rangaiah vs Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore … on 5 December, 2008
Author: H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT'AK.A, 

DATED THIS THE 5'"! DAY OF DEcEMBERM2d'<)éj[ .

BEFORE

THE Howsm MR.JUsT1cE I%*I.;8tIfi4,L1!_;\v,E'5_i?:}§. M     

WRIT PE'I'ITi0N No.I7$O£1 L2{§07bfS'§ A = "  

BETWEEN:

Sri.S.R.Prakash,   

Aged about 33 years, 

S/olate Rangaiah, - _ . '   
First Grade Revenue  " 1 
Ofikte of the  

West   _
Bruhavt, ' 2--..= Palike,
Bangalore «.660    .. PE'I'l'1";{ONER

   

(By S_:*i'.S.V§'ia'Fa_j-as.iinfx:axi;" Adv.)

 V   I    ..... .. V

 .1"; _Cém.ix1iséieI2 £j;r,

  Mahmmgara Palike,

 Barlgakirc 4-560 002.

V' V'   :2". JG.int '(3ommissioner (Administration)

'A    Bangalore M -wfike,
'  Bkangalom-560 G02. ..R.%PON'DEN'I'S

% my Sri.Ashok Hamanam, Adv. for 12.1 85 2}

V



This Writ Petition is filed under 

227 of the Constitution ef India, praying xée   
records _pertain'mg to oflioe order dt8-8-200?-._V0fjthe R2 
vide Am2x.C and quash the  --dt.'8«8y+20O?.V of 
the R2 vide Annx.C and as a consequence tltiereef «d i'rect"'.
the respondents to release and giant  _'vc'ithhe'i€.iI.:

increment, by issue of a writef ma’ndé’a1nus.T _ ”

This Writ Petition

hearing in B’ Group this dajf;.._the Cot1.*’t_’A1;n.a:£1<ie the
following: 7 _ ,

M
Heard ceunseiejvbg' parties.

Article 225 of the

Consfitfitieii of». petitioner has called in

que’s:ie:a.tl1eV 8~8-2007′ passed by the second

V _ Wide ‘C’.

impugned order at Annexure-‘C’, the

has imposed penalty of withhelding

increment.

4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed

V’ , this writ petition.

&/

5. The learned counsel for

contended that the impugned ox’d_er..¢:ann;)i K ” V

in law as it is in violation 01′ Rule 2 at }

1957. He also submitted be ” L’

entertained, though there as the
order is void ab initie. that the
writ petifion is fifible V’ V”

6. éefé «'(V(:ffCA’::jR’t:1aes, 3957, provides

rm concerned servant must

be in of the proposal to take action

‘ st; of the imputation of misconduct or

the present case, the petitioner has

V «V . of the proposal to take” action again’ Q

‘A of the imputation of misconduct or

* Therefore, the iznpugnw omen’ cmmot be

” susmm in law as it is in violation of Rule 12 of FIGS

(CCA) Rules, 1957.

L/

7. Thsrefore, the wft pemon is

the impugned artist at is

and the matter is remitted to

with a dsmcm n to vs i.n a;.cce:rI'(I:

with law.

Bss.