_
K_S.R.T.C. '-
CEN"¥'RAL.£)FFIQES_ '
s<AH,r-"ems '~
sHANTH::§Ac_;:=.aV % -- -
BAN{3ALC¥RE--560G27 RESPONDENTS
‘(ay 33: :”As+§:..g, PRAYM3 TO: QUASH THE impuewgn QRDER
L>T.23;v1,2oQvs_, “:;:-:.~:sV§.;ag::s 3%’ R2, VIBE ANNA) “rm ma wan” PETlTi0N_
Tréin.-;*:,__§%>’E”r1Ta_c;>t~: ‘:;;Qé;+s;r~:<3. ow ma page HEARNG *5' GROUP mas DAY,
_ ':n i:his..A$IVrit Petition. petitioner has catled in question the order of
TV fhet. veefifiener filed his reply to me article ef charges on
V . 1 encl eemragraph 6 he has specifically stated that the Law
V Hassan received the file on 9.11.1997 and he receiveé
A i en 11.113997 and on 12.12.1997 he aimed for
elgiieeeiementatien of are order of High Court and on 14.11.1997 the fiie
lees sent to the Divisional Conh'oiier's Office fer irnplementation. He
gsubreilied that. ihere was no iapae en the part of hue petitioner.
2. Case of the petitioner is that. Goreoration initiated enquiry
ereceedinge by issuing article of charges dated 11.3.2004. in
charges were alleged against the pefilzioner and in this ”
has aise submitted his repiy. The Enquiry Officer by his ”
dated 33.23.2005 held that, charge Nes.1 and:2″er”e 4;=qollarifa_tiei;.T6f”‘the
workman. passed an order of ;2;;r1iehrrgentVVV:.ir;!ereiia heldiha the
petitioner is guilty of misconduci 6? eat order of High
Court in time and has ceased iifiecordingly. the
Qieciplinary Autéworily. eztrliehiteent. reduced one
increment for the effect and also
dirxted for reeoverir j salary of the petitioner.
Petitioner filed ah eppeai Authority. The Appellate
Authority alse m ceriei<:1ere£i'en."efAl:ixe matter, confirmed the order of
Dieeieiinarsr A
learnecf ceunsel appearing for me petitioner
/"
.~%~e\i”T.,_.
the doizrtelfe iirzfiiezneisied effectively. No doubt he cleared fine file
TV “.—-‘Airrimedia*tel§§r.– butthe not make any enquiry as to whether the Court
V . ‘ ‘florr.i7ers3”’are eiurngoleniented or not. There was e delay in implernenting the
V V’of’ii2e.AA”Court and we Court directed the Corporation to pay the
wages which was directed :0 be paid to the workman and
Caccordingiy. the Corporation suffered iess on account of iapse on the
-3-
Petitioner has immediately ciear the fife and directed for impiementetiors
of the order. it is in the Divisional Controllers offlce, the file was lying
and the deiey is on the part of the officials of the Divisional Con’eoiler’s
office. He also submitted mat. the enquiry was inifiated against
the staff for deiaying flue marker and they were punished. He ”
that. bofii the Enquiry Officer have not considered T’ 1 H
offered by the petitioner and so also are Appeiileiehsiiierityi
error in confirming the order of punishment.
4. Learned counsel appearing reeoonderji ‘i.’}orooreiion
submitted that, it was the duty of ‘see tiwiavtuiihe orders
of the Court are ireplemented. Thekiolei
office and the Law not make any
enquiry. it is alleged resgierisiiqlefeflderelicfion of duties and
has caused lees’ to fitii’i’-ereeard. he referred to the
findings of out mat the Law Oificer has
admitted mat he siege: rlareenm from 14.11.1997 rm 1.4.1998
aridtill he did Vno’:.Vrriel_re:any enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has
found the Law Officer to ensure that the erders of
-4-
part of the Law Officer who did not effectively impiement the orders of
me Court. In my opinion, the Enquiry Oificer has rightly found that the
charge N051 and 2 are proved. The fiiscipiinary Authority as weH__as
the Appeliate Auflzority have considered this matter and heft! that
charges are proved. Ne doubt the petitioner has cieared me _fi’§é;’
failed to impfement the order of the Coutt. His duty cannct..eA hfi’.!VV asréiy by { % ~
approving, but he is afso required to see that offiiérs I.
properly implemented. in the circumstances;—J find ngi-“.’.re:a’sén ‘ifs. V’
interfere with the impugned order. _
Accordingly, this Writ Pefitiéais ” –
%
Judge
*APf-