GuIbarga_'«.T'_' «
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 5
DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF JUNE 2003 .. A %
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUST1CE.siT~ABpULAgVAzEE1é 1 f °
WRIT PETITION No.111as/mar') »KsR?*r: T %
Between:
Sri Ambaraya, V V
350 Srisripati Biradar, ' ._ _ -
Aged about 43 yea;-sg =
Cio Ghanasham Coiubléx, ~ " « -. V' »
13101-6, Block-C, V _
01313. Fire
Gu1barga-- 58:5 102, _ _' Petitioner.
(By Sri v.s. Nai1<~~v¥"¥*1v.) A' * "
And :
figs .Ifi)i'wisAiV§:$'::sV.1l %§gm:;+o11er, %%%%% M
NEKRT C,"{':1;ii3a;'gav'D§viSi0t1,
.. .. Respondent.
T’ Sri K§11e.e1n1,;vIIa A ‘ ., Adv.)
—u
. A ms Wfit Petitien is filed under Articles 225 & 227% {yr the
praying to quash the award dated 6.4.2085 in
V . _ 5T87′.«’2000, etc.
4. Learned Couxzsei for the petitioner woaid contend th3._t;’iiie’ ‘ ” V
duty of an Auditor requires specie} skill. The H.
werking as a Junior Assistant. He had not
Section so as to get himself acquainted’ fI?ie_ , 1 3
waybills. Therefore, the discipiinary aufllosftgs not’
finding fault with the petitioner.’ toe
finding of the enquiry ofiicer
authority erred in Vdthejdpay of the
Pfititioner :9 its ii gexainiued that the
punishment disproportionate {o
the misconduct adeged agsiest ‘w d ‘ is
5. ufiflldta’ Counsel appearing for the
resp’ooder1:oVfias iojustify the impugned award.
clearly establishes thai the petitioner
audife:t__’4″i>nev_\asia’v£§§_:ii;l on 21.11993, four waybills eaeh on
…%2;g.=3oo._i’993, 31.31993 and 9.4.1993 respectively. The Security
\x
Ofiieer, who was working at the relevant poirit of time, was
examined as MW.I. He has given evidence in detail about
investigation conducted by him in relation to ”
of the revenue of the Corporation by Prakash ‘
the waybills on difierent dates. It is alsbeiear gieiitiofier
audited the said waybills. The et_ri.denee o_t’
shaken in the on
record, the Labour Cotivrtthas reeofdetifi the
petitioner was negIigeiitPi;iV toot find any
error in the iéfithe Liabour’
7. ing as a Junior Assistant
and he was Vgiot ‘an. Azzdittzr iquztiification. It is also not in dispute
worked in the Traflic Section of the
Cm’pef£itioii.§o :tt}.,ivg_’e’t.i.::3.€.’§j¥.iai:}f;é3£i with the details ofthe waybills
any poitttertittit. ‘Petitioner had audited only tiie abstract portiotk
i doubt M.WI, who was working as the Security
thejrelevant point cftime has given evidence relating to
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds it is AV 3
pm. The order ofthe disciplinary authority (:i.i41t:3<1'i-:A'i'.'9f';1ii'.i§97*.:iii'="'~|i
No.KST.GL8.DS.873:96/17270/97 imposing
petitioner is set aside. However, the
withhold two increments of 'A
effaci. No costs. V