IN THE HIGH COURT or-" KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12*" DAY OF EANUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE MAN._1ULA_"C'H;Et.!';§j}ii"
AND V
THE HOf\i'BLE MR. JUSTICE'A:;'N,,'VEA§Ué§O.P_ALA' 7§o.\,a;D--A
WRIT APPEAL No.:A,éA122'o,o8
BETWEEN: V é
Sri. Mohan Das P.ramana~'S'n'etty," .
Aged about 63~'ye«ars, '
Middle Officer,
Code N'd.3876., Vfiayat Bvat'n,E{,"--- '
K.R.Puram E3ranChV,"._'~. .
BangaEore"~~.__5EO O'3.6.1_ " .
(now§jIieg~aiEy remoy_ed,f'rom Service),
(New Adv'd're5,e')*--.residing at Flate No.40-4
M/Sfsubba Rao & C0,, Advs.)
.\_,/ijaAyarrApa,«rtme_nt.. Behind City Hospitai,
Cosmos li'n.e~,.. Kavdri,
Mangaiore _~ jS6O O03.
2 V ZAPPELLANT
. _M1_._? Vijaya Bank,
Represented by the Managing Director,
No.41/2, Head Office,
M.G.Road, '
Bangalore -« 560 001.
2. The Genera! Manager (Personnel), V.
Vijaya Bank, Industrial Reiations Department, "
No41/2, Head Office, " V
M.G.Road,
Bangaiore -- 560 001.
3. The Deputy General Manager, .
Vijaya Bank, No.41/2, Head Office,-~_.l '
M.G.Road,
Bangaiore -- 560 002.
This Writ appeal 'rst}EeAd7.un§der4'€§ecti'o--,n 4 of Karnataka
High Court Act pAraying:.t0"'se:t as:.q"e__th"e §"rd'é}~ passed in the
writ petition s\:¢d;%:a'j:';-;i?e0/'20:0r2 dated 09.07.2000.
This tapp'ea.E_'v«:0Arntr§'g":on for preiirrzinary hearing this
./0ppciayjjj'3'~vE_ru:u:3oPAiAvveom/DA, 3, deiivered the fonowmg:
JUDGMENT
writ petitioner is the appeliant. In the
writ4″pet’ét.éo.nx, he had sought the quashing of an order dated
“..f}2V6’t.t1..1.0Vi passed by the respondents, whereby, he was
” removed from service on account of tgrisconduct.
5′
v…’:»R:E_S£5~t§i\$’pE:NTs ” d
3
2. Briefly stated, the materiai facts are as follows:–
Appeliant joined services of Vijaya Bank as a cierkgin
the year 1974. Over a period of time, he was:i~pro_fn’otec_l:v_”
When he was working as Scaie II
misconduct was found to have ‘been’committe_d*,a.i}dA,ag
charge~sheet (Annexure–A) dated 16–.Q’5i;O1 w.a’sis’sued’;, to
which, he submitted a reply daltied”O2..O7.2.OO’i-Vbyniway of a
denial (Anne><ure—»G) imposing penalty. ifhe petitioner c§1–a'lle_n«=;;g.edu
the penalty order in appeal (Annexure –~
unsuccessful in view of the
(Annexure — K). Hence, he filed thewrit"pet'ilt~i.Qh..–'_
3. The writ petitio’n2Dlwa_s opplosecl hiljy the
respondents employerjD”‘L..eai’_*iie;ltSi.r_i_g,.l_e~–.3l.idgeliconsidering
the contentions urged on tl’i’eV.’pei._ifvt._i’es and noticing
the fact that,:”‘t4liF§§g.c:i:petitioher” has:a’clrn.l.ttsecl the guilt even
during t.hercouvrVse’:”-of’leshtgtigihiw,’tieicl that, the writ petitioner
cannot wrigglle_0Lj’i;.ot3.tr’ie:”_same on the grouncl that he has
_ assL.r«::§nedi’~that .a’~–l.enieni; View would be taken and further
.no’te_ci _n’iatei*§al is forthcoming to Show that such
eatsl”-asst;i~§5′;vwg:e’,.”¥§*¢as ma<:'%z:?: by the EEl"£l;}§G\_,!Er &flC? the
_ adnfissioyn guilt by the eetitiorzeg' being en his own
"'~"'._v'cl.ét_.i4o:iland that the i:"*fl§§GS%t§i)§"'; of penalty caenol: be
f'aL.J'l'tetl. CO|'3SlC§EEE°§:"':g' the gr'iev;r::o8′ we’eks’.
by the said order to the e><ten,t_it is 'against 'ECi:.f'il'li'iA;i',' see=k'i'r'i»g'V'–
setting aside of the same and""'toi"allow t'he"wr'i=t in
foil by granting all the'fr'el_iefs}.'t'he.:'petitionerlhlasixfiled this
appeaL
4. We heard S’:ri.”‘S:iJb.’r’amanya Bhat, learned
advocate appearinVg””‘–for”‘:5ithe”–appegllant and perused the
record.) i..earnet:i”Cogi:Sel.__r’e–it’erated the contentions urged
before theV’ieai’ned .S4iiv.g’ie:3’udge and as noticed in the order
imp.»u.i;ineid herein.aVnd_contended that the Learned Single
»}trd–g_Ve i1as.yer:red___in not granting all the reliefs prayed in the
w–rAit’–p’etiVtio’h.,
point for consideration is:
n Whether the iearned Singie Judge has erred in not
‘ouashing the order imposing penalty and its
affirmation in appeal?” X
6. Indisputediy, charge~sheet was issued-,__ to
which a baid deniai was submitted, in view
disciplinary enquiry was ordered and during the’ course’ V’
enquiry, when the plea was being-ir’ecorgded, tVhé’:apvpeE’.i§r:ti–.A
admitted ali the charges ievelied ag°ain:;sA.At_l
D). That apart, during the-..__c’e,_urse.V’ of his S’
statement, the appellan-tghas a-dimitteld-»c,the ch’arge.’: He had
only requested to viewl4’the”rnatt§r E’en_ient”iy. Considering
the nature of cha’r’ges admission of
guiit isfon pgwn.l1:}fv§iit.i:on’_.vofthewappeliant, learned Singie
Jludge “rightly”i.lheid”-.:tha’t the imposition of penalty
cannOt.,be faiiitiedf’ Inl’-the facts and circumstances of the
-“.,,r5aseiat:h»e’i finding recorded by the learned Single Eudge to
ii:hVeA_i.etfe:c:’t-gthate.iifhposition of penalty cannot be fauited, is
iinexgceptionlabllle.
‘ A. In the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. SARDAR
eAf}ADUR, (1972) 4 scc 618, the Apex Court has held
that there are limits to the power which can be excercised
by a Single Eudge under Article 226 of the Constitution and
t
/A
sérnélarly, there are limits to the powers of a Divéslon’*§enCh
while sitting in an appeal over the judgment-hot ”
Judge. Apex Court has held that tt;het*e’thereleare,’4rele§/jant-.A 2
materials which supllort the conclltisiottthat”th’e..”QfféC’e’r.,:lll§~:,
guilty, it is not the function Hioiw.__Court::to~.;a’r’ri’v’e at ”
an independent finding: ItVAl-h–a’sf–b’e–eAn held~–.th.a’t, if an
enquiry has been propertgrsheltjfiltillellllqtlestion of adequacy
or reliability of éevidencevlcamta”ssed before the
High Court.:_. ‘ l
8; 1. Int’h’e:fCasev4’4Vlo.f_:CélE5P;éll?EL EXPORT PROMOTION
COUNCIL l’re,}}l’,’r’ (1999; 1 sec ?s_<:9, it has been
held.»45th'Vat; it "wltVh_t_nA.the gurésdictlon of the competent
auVt'hot*:t.y'rto'«..o"eclde what punishment has to he imposed
arrdthe tjté"e'stE'oVn of punishment is outsltie the f§}i.E?""-Jl'8'u'\;' of
«Vl~légh4' Cou.rt's interference unless lt. is grossly
"v.'r»dlspr.oportionate to the proved m':scort::lu<:t to sho::l< the
Clo-nlsclence of the Court.
9″ In the Case on hand, it is a Case of a:.lmissioe
of the guilt which was vGli.ll’3’EE.%l”;,/ anti tii’§{Tii§l’lij’ll§lf}£’2al.
\
/fl
Q
0
Considering the gravity of the mist::<;:ii'"i<i:_i::t. iii":€:'?
authority passed the order dated 2.6.1_?,.iiZi1 i"t1Z.|j.i'iiL}\}fr¥Tit'_,;i
appeliant from service. The a;3;:eiEelte«ai'iiii:i'io«:i_t};sees'-i'i'iot".
interfered with the said penalty oi'cie__i',1"._in tiieV_–v_s;:i'ri:i 'i./iVey;i'«~oVf"~.
the matter, iearned Singie was_j'i;isl:_=ii'ied"Hin not
interfering with the pe.n"a.l.ty order; m
10. The .:–oVntenti’o*n. iiirith .gr’e_g’a.r;i Attftlhe quantum of
penalty is ou_t:{et’,’ not for the Courts
to detern:in~e””‘ti?e_ iipunishment, once the
charges. are ipVr<:yfe..c:I';=L"it_:"'is'settled law that the Courts
cannot inte–r_ferexon4Viiji"sp:_l'.3ced grounds of sympathy and /
orvifiierey. git is'=-.'or the empioyer to decide, unless it is a
ease' s-h_o'ck«i.rigv__the conscience of the Court. "taking into
Con'si'de'rat'.i'onAf:=tVirie nature of order passed by the iearned
Singie fiudhgée i.e., aiiowing the writ petition in part, we do
not~~..find any justification to interfere with the impugned
order.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of
merit and shali stand regected without there being any
X
need to issue nohce to the responfient5_f¥yia
Mésc.W.11881/09, féieci for condonation of_2.8,_u_:dVayef.f:tieiey”
in fifing the appeah the con$defeU¢ef>bf*&fiucfi 35?
unnecessaryén vkam ofthe appea§itSeH”havnjg heed hea%a d
onrnentsand S bang d5nfisse5&fi;devokLQ?Ifiefl§
sac*