IN 'l'l~IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BAN(§A.L(.)RE
DATED THIS THE 23") DAY OF JULY 2609?
BEFORE
THE H()N'BL}£ MR.JUSTiCE rmLuvA1>:%;i;§RAIs1mu%% ,
WRIT 1>I»;'m';0N N0441538 %()F_ggIoxs:_§3 x 'k T
BE"I'WEEN:
Smt.Man}'ttia Raddy,
Aged about 51 years, a
Wfo late G.S::inivas, _ --. ; ~ AA
Assistant, Establishment See{:ti(;i1 ,"V '
K.S.R.T.C., % é
TumkurI)ivisam:'&J:v%%4%'% g "
Tumkur. % "PETITIONE-R
(By MES'.S13.Mi1§:.1§;i§iAha;j;i1a§§;'é'iJAssocéatcs_ Am. )
Mafiging Director,
"
-- A ' '--(3enita'i:'L:Of5écs,
Shahthinagar,
x Bangél0re~560027.
" We Divisional Contraiier,
K.S.R.T.C.,
Tumkur I}ivisi<:)n,
Tumkur. ..RESPONDENTS
38″‘
(By Sri.L.Govindra§, Adv-)
This Writ Petitima is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution cf India praying to quash fine impugned order
cxf reversion dt.30.5.09 passed by the R2, vidc Ann-{;iii’to this
WP, under the facts and circurnstanccs of the case. f .. _
This Writ Petition earning can for pmlimizwéry,
‘B’ Group this day, the Ceurt made thg »f0lI0wi:;g:. _: » ‘
0RDER;.
The petitioner in this has”3$sai1czii.:ri1é._o:<€i$r~30f'{he L'
2"': respondent–aufl1:3rit.y at Anfifi:i}{!!f6~».._'L7 i€ii!'}<.i._SQbigh'{ for to
issucfiwnit sf '?=;$"quash' the same and also to issue any
other araprruprifite. 'fir-.;iiriiictio:1K
A_1Icgi1iig-3%:-ai petitioner-wnrkman was unauthorisedly
of six months cnmmencing am 8.5.93 is
I .93' {inquiry was instittmeci against her and the enquiry
AA repe§rt,_.iwa£ submitted to the effect that she is nut guiity cf
ii 'rriiimi-ifiéanduct. However, it appears; her absence continued til}
24.3.94. If} the meanwhile the disciplinaxy ant};-ority having
W.
examined the matter, being not satisfied wéih the enquiry repeoflz,
ardereé féwr frmh enquiry ané during the pnenciemy (sf the: fits}:
enquiry, the workman was pmn2otcd’cim’ing 2004 fignf
of iunim Assistant to Assistant. in the nieaszwhifé ff;-:”cfié’:r:._Tt’1t»v
initiate frtssh enquiry a notice qamcé to by * L4
Management to the: wcrkman can gffiuiid
report was set aside. The ” bflfbtg has’
challenged the said gouge. Tc;”pa§t;’aii”-sgzd zggshe nxigauon this
Court by imposing a the matitar in
W.P.I>Io;33:9€3}(}f;§ii:;:A: .vTh+.§§*aa:Lftér,—-«:an.»’i:he ground that during the
pendficy (‘3f been promoted to the post if
Assistanfiirhtn Vthg: p.§:§si~~– Junior Assistant a decision was
V’ _ V-the rVéVS;x1’iTident~aafla0Iity to revert her back to her
V isfiating that the ‘candidate shall not he ccmsidercd
fig prsanfiifigifil during the pendency (“If the discipiinary enquiry.
AA Hcnxfiq. this pctitiozm by the workman on various grounds.
3. Heard.
X5?”
4. A1: the outset, the learned Counsel appearing t3t)i*”–the
Workman has submitted that even as per R&gulatic:z:’**1i-itVliifliiizgii’
KSRTC Servants (Ccmduct &; Discipline) Raga.la$iiiii_isV i
Ciirprzaratinn only permits for lijrtherlanqgxiryi’ afadinlcit- ii}? .i
enquiry much less, the dlS{3l]Z1lli’l}ii’§;’..aUlll’l0flt:VVl2a;.§:il}ii}’§}Q}§fé’%iF {ii
set aside the enquiry finding a:igi..oifda_r’tQ enquiry
which is noncst in the eye; ‘pm’ the guidelines
producad al£)i:’1g’:i¢:VV§*’it}} lfozi i filling up the
promatienaf if ha: for prmnation.
–~ Cmmscl appearing for the
Man§1gve1j;1eriliih:ii$’s1ibiaiiittiiElithat Regulation 24 of the KSRTC
D) liiigiiilations of 1.971 pmvides far to order far
since the file ofthe petiticmer was misplacad
heri'”‘c3.séA waié considered fer pmmotinn during 2004, Hmvcver,
.. to the nrder of the ‘c:li$cip§inary aatlmrity relying upon
iii’Rui:igii;i:1ation 24, 3 fresh enquiry being ordered which is pending,
as such, an actimi was taken by the Managamani: to revert the
workman from the post (if Assistant to luniar Assistant, as
W
case of the petitioner for pmmetion. In the ci3’cumstancgésTany
natice that is issued by fiie Management ti; revert
post of Assistant to the post sf Junioar fiat .,
permissible.
10. Acmrrdingly, _pctiticsn___iL:’§§:’s:t}_}a>v§red.’an§Vfhcfiimpugned .
order passed by the 2″” ‘L’ is quashed.
Sdli
. «wage