Shivaji D Belawadi vs The Karnataka Agro Industries … on 20 August, 2008

was THE H§GH COURT 0? KARNATAKA

cmcuzr BENCH AT GHARWAD A M
BATES ms THE 207" am' o:= AUGUST zoea j
PRESENT "- v%*'"

THE HQWLE MRs..Jus"rzcE MANJuLA%cr%s:LLf:;§%    " ' AL

AND     H   
'ft-{E HUMBLE MRJUSTECE KE.KE_£'s?-§AVAi$«£ARAYF'§lf2:A 
wear APPEAL E\Vis*>._3-'394}2Q.6}?(S»RESV7;.A' "   V'

BETWNEEN:

8h§\fa§§ Bfieiawadé .
Sioflharmajiselawadi A --.
Aged 50 years,   «
Working as Accounts Officer, _  V
Kamataka A9133 «industries '
Corporation i,.i?_nitega';' _. . '

i-iubii. "  

 * Av  _  _ % ' ...APPEL:.ANT
{By S:€.,A.S.P'ati!"%:5§*-k{agdéx{§ Assosicates, Adv.)
1, he Karnatéicé Hgro industries

[__Cogpgmtéo:1 Limi'te*.£« "
Governméznt of Karnataka Undertaking

 V' " ~H;eia.b?a¢,.Bajfiga£ore-560 O24.
 Rep Ijyits  aging Directoa

AA '  £§a§.S.8uiEding, Bangaiore-~560 091.

 -(E'y' Sr§.M,B.Kanavi & Srf.M.S.£-Satish, Advs. fer RA

he S'ta§é' (Sf Kamataka
Rep' by its Principal Secretary
Bepaftmeni of Agriculture & Horticulture,

,.,RESPONDEi\ETS

  _ $32.2 Es serveci)

This Writ Appeal is flied under Secficn 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act praying ta set aside the order passed in the Writ
Petition No.22083f2604 dated 6.?'.2£30?.

This Writ Appeai coming on for Preiiminary Hearing, this day
KESH VANAR.AYANA.J§ delivered the foifowéng:



J [.53 G E M E N T
in this appeai, the appeilsnt has questisned the isgefiity and

correctness of the cider of the ieamed Single Judge 

Ns.22083.'2004 wherein the writ petition fiied by the"i%i_i5pi2iiiz:i:rii"éaii§_je  

to be dismissed.

2. The appeiiarit was an eiiiépioiysws in

industries Corgioration Ltd, HubiEi','~--i§iéi--vzas .srde.ted;i;7 isévvivfaiisierredii'

frsm Hubii to Bagaikot on 2.Q.?.i39§~..s_iidii:sreai'iér'i*is wss reiieved
from his post at Hubii on 999., iizeiifagspsiiiiant aid not report for

duty at Bagaiimjti,' ._;e_vs:fiw2ifi'ei{ ttie«.:ia2ipii?-ygisiii the icing period.

Howe*g'e'ii;"sni.x6:i3.1§§§5§i tii'sV,si'p'psiIa'iii"sé:nt a ieave fetter aieng with a
medicziiAcéftificsté'iwssskiiigsigiiafii.of ieavs without mentioning the
perisd foiiiisiijiicia iie_\iiii:«_s" isquiring isave. Subssqusnity aiso he

wsrii sri'ssndiiig"~~ap_pi_ications for grant of ieaxie without prsperiy

i ;i?aentio.efiii:g'iiié-- period for which the leave was required. According

 ~ts'.ihe ép'§éiiiafii.,"iie was suffering frsm Bicoei Presure and therefore

hé'.'irirasi'---iniiaviéiie is go to Bagaikot far reporting to duty. it is aiso his

V   iisonieniifoin that his wife is also a Government empioyee staiicized at

' '''._VHubii and therefore if he is made is work at Bagaikct, it wouici

ii " - cause him great incsmienience, hardship and firisnciai isss. As

the appsiiarii: did riczt report far duty, the management issued a
shew cause statics caiiing upon the appsiiarit to shew cause why

action sheuid not be taken against him for disobedience' 'iiie

w



appefient submitted hie explanation, Thereafter, he eebmifcfted en

eppiicetiera for Veiuntary Retirement. However, the ap{53'Eeetie'i:.Afor

Voiuntary Retirement came it: be rejected in 208'? 

management stating that he does netieefisfy t?:'eVEet;eiEee§en§:»9f flaew' ' 

scheme. After serving erticiee of dharge;~{he1maee§e§*r:eet.Reid

/ enquiry. Sefere the Enquiry  {fie'V'eppe1e%e'ei»».i._eepee?ed% 

defend the charges {evened agaiz_1fie£"£*1i:;~:-2;.' After he} njingfienquiry, the
Enquiry Officer eubmifieee reejertw-_ §1.e!i£i_r3e :'t?3et the charges made
against the appeéiant ere..p§ce!.e§§;.VVA   fhe copy of the
enquiry reeorfi eeeeenegz-ehee2"ea{;eeV r§eiice~'i§vas eéso issued to the
appellant  eeiiee why he eheuid net be
dismisfieeev  'F;§teEV'VcensEdering the expianatien
sebmiiéee; by  1' me Disciplinary Authority ordered

diemieeei efthe' epVpe£¥entVf2'em the service. The said order came

  te..ib?e :;§{e%Egenge§i'b}*------t%§e eppefiant before We Coezrt in the Wrét

 ' .F"e'Eitiei':,4§v=Eiie?{eerne to be dismissed by the Eeamed Siegfe Juege.

3..  eave heard the learned eunse£ appearing fer the

 appeEfaf1f:.ae eieo the counsel for the respondent. We have perused

A 5′ ‘recerde made avafiebie.

4. E4: is an undisputed fact that the eppeétant was erdezed to

be iraneferred from 3-fubfi to Begeikot and he was relieved er:

?,9.’299§. it 53 net disputed that the appellant cfid net reperi for

M

duty at 8aga§kra’. ‘fiEéd

appeflant.

5. £1: is wet! sétfleéf _Ea§vL t§3’ai:shouid be siew in
interfering with the orcie.*$ ;3f:zs$e§£:~._b§} ‘t$*x§’fgiiiécigslinary Authority
based on e:j¢$_§1§r§{;:jj~ré_pa{:i;éu§3_!éés_§{ fisfiéwh that the order of the

Bisciplinarir “suff:e Eé.’L_fr£$ir:’fmégaifész iiiegaiity or irreguiarity.

We see ncffsuch néé’E3V%f§:-sesif iE,§iég§:_:EEi3t’o’r irregularity in the order
passed by the é£?rEs_<:%+pi;'né':y dismissing the appefiant from

the servigzg "Era. this Visiefg of the matter, we see no ground 4:0

inte;ffe:ev:§ézith_§i;::§ oijrtier of the ieamed Singie Judge.

A :A::'g:oTte*f fi{;£g§{, t§inea'ppea! i$ rejected.
;:

Sd/—

Iudge

Sd/11.

Judge

§J\..#’I-J’\-“Ila…

mw’