' ."EELLERy*,O=
{ET 5MTfH§EQEENUKA, ADVOCATE.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
EATEE THIS THE 13" DAY OE JANUARY 2EOEE;E_
BEFORE _f"'IEj_
THE HON'ELE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASB_fi;ADIfn_
WRIT PETITION NO.1O145120G?(SK§5E I-i.'
BETWEEN:
SRI.E.TuKARAMA EEO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O.K.RANOJI RAO , ,w
NG.1712/1, 3M}CROSS{g K
VINOBANAGAR '*~..'
DAVANAGERB --I . w. w;.-
.. :a~=--j' ",1_ :,';.EETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.E,mSgKANMAEEA,'AOVOCETEE;
AND:
I. THE~M%NASING DIRECTOR "
N.E.K.R;TgCH'.V ,V=_ _
CENTRAL EEFICES. *,_*
GOKUL ' * ' 7.":
HUBLI', "
2. TEE EIVISIOEAE CONTROLLER
"fi}ETK_R_T C .I.I .....
, EELLEET"mIvISION
..RESPONDENT
TQIS WRIT PETITION_IS ETLED UNDER ARTICLES
“»226»AND 22? OE TEE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA PRAYING
.'<TO_ QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.4.2005
_IaEASsEO BY 2.2 VIBE ANNEXURE~H TO THE WRIT
I,"pETITION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
~CAsE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HERING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
reply he has tried to refer other names :55 the
alleged misconduct. But there is no juetifieetiono
for his act or there is ne denial of the eilegedati
charge. When discrepancies are zpoifited Vout ‘in
discharge of his duties, his feilure_¢onetitutesFr
a clear case of nfiscondfiet; Tne*EnqnieQd§fticer
has given a finding;” and fi”the adbiséiplinary
Authority on considegetione oi ithe– evidence has
rightly paseed the order of egnishfient. The order
oft puni§heentjiiis_iioni}, Qwithholding of two
increments; Henge, i fihd_Q0 reason to interfere
with the order of puniehment.
6; Accordingly; the writ petition fails and
7V the same is dismissed.
Sd/:3
Iudglg
mv*
