High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M Nagaraj vs The Divisional Controller on 19 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Nagaraj vs The Divisional Controller on 19 March, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE I-KGB COURT OF mRNA'1'A1<;A AT BANG;:L:§R;f2..'_.jj  ;_. A' 

Dated this the 19"' day enviarch, ztm.  ' 
Before    ' » . '
YHE HON'BI.E MR Jzfsizcg :{ULf§*;2i B1 G ;§£»£;13f.§'S?;'V  V'
Writ Petition 54s¢jQ2ocs%   M

Sri M Nagaraj Sfo M Muniyappé"-- ~ . . '
56 yrs? Ria Gaxnbheermxahaili 
AtJa11gamai<otePost I  *  ; «V 

Shidlaghaita Tq, Ko§az*1Z}§$'_i;;é.ct  1. .V      Petitioner

{By Sri s E M1a<a:£m§a;.,§5;* figs.)-..j{--:~._     '
And:  ....  _  '  V % '

Divisicmal Cgnflfifler, j1::é§;'1f}»::jT.  %  _
Kelar I)i*virsio:'1,__I<Zc.1Mm.   S »  " Respmzdent

(By S:-i  H.-a;-ees1g" ;'a_c2x%j§

»  --. A '9'i:'f'rii4 Pc£ition is filed under a§.226,f22'? of the Constitution

§r;y;x;g"a:. q:1}a§h'vfiie._ai:'ard dated 27.9.2007 in 2:0 1275:2091 by the 11 Add}.

Lahz31§*--(§z}urt,' I$anga;;t::e

  Téeiiiioxz earning on for preliminary hearing this day, the

% T  . ,. « 4' _ Cqurt made vtiifi: foiiowing;

ORDER

Petition is by the workznan assaiiing the award passed by the II Aédi.

V Lab0ur Court, Bangalore in II} 12%-=’2{}G1 and seeking to qtmh the same and

alga for 3 mandamus ta raimtate petitiemsr with wminuity of 5::-rvéce and

ixm-scenes, none of them have been examiner}. Afte; remand, rna:1;§gc}r::sr;nt

has examined the wiinesses to Show that there were pr€:¥.?i_r-.;’.:_3 ‘

misconduci wherein minor penaity had been imposed e:1″%:h::’ ~;§%:’_€i£iéner.AV lijs ” ”

not :1 case of mn~–issnan<:e of tickets. It £3 more-3 s;§::se'=+.c:;f' néf1~issfif;::1_cr:A;;:;f

tickets afier colieciing money. As 5323:; isht} émzr iizfheyaxyfard ;§asSed_ u u

by the mhuna: and accardirtgly, saought t3m§is;y;;ssa1 §fr1{e iieméxgn.

In the lighi 9f the arg"1'1mfit;:1.Is".ad'é¢*an¢§ét1,:"At1§é gain: that awises for
consideration is wixethm the awfsarti' pa$3.efl'*by»$h¢ Cam is sustainable.
As ii t:'a1§.§pjr$s; thé 'th:é'§l: !)1dV:t}i£':re five}? 97 such cases of pilferage
for which minor "m_§;arci¢:1 £21 93 such. cases, according to the
managemenf.' "Ifhe'ohaifg§.m,.1éi;oai*ii 11.2.1999 and when the petitiener was

V – jjg§«_=,yfo;*;’§2.i’}§g?..A?21is my 35 Cbfiiiixctor in bus Nu. I§ia workman but,
the ‘werkman did nof t”}:Z’!V’S7i’T1;#\”f:’i#3$’§4~’gji’_ig,c}(}S3{i their names.
Apm from that, n¢v:’$”gexéf the fact that, after the
matter was in cfifiglénce, the management alone
availed the “Ei1%:”‘Suyerv’is0r W110 <:ou§d produce the

reecrds cf abqut 98 éafafltit» aésefi respect of which minor punished was

v.w:';fl§man.'V «Furilier, mating that the higtory sheet has been

mai.fi_tai2;%gc¥ £382,_:§£:;i fnat the petitismer is guiity of misconduct as per

' " L..,,.., fir;e C1'1§J"{f,§.:'§'3eV"§:§(§~:"5_gAi¥1si' him and having held that there are 9'? cases of

.,._V_{i'gfa_1V;1t and it2 '9;3 vfiasas already miner punishment has been imposed, has

7 * irngzugtled nrder,

— fie that the petitioner was exnneraied cm the eariier occasion.

;x{fte:>* 7fe1:n3nd__eV’en material was phcad 0:; record regarding the previous

xv