IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF' NOVEMBER
PRESENT OOOOOO
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTiCE»~ N E O'
THE HONBLE MR.JUS*i'i-.C:E..ARZXLI__
WRIT PETITION 1e793O:.'oE'ii2o%%10O
Between:
Sri S.B.Honny1rK.. _ 1:
S / 0 Sri Balap'-pa iH_Q'Il11i1If _
Aged about 54v-°y_eéi:r's-- . " A'
Addition D'iré'ci<-3; of . ,
Planning 81 1\_/IemberiV5Seefeta
Bangalore-Mysore Enii'aE.tf'L1oeti11Tre._ Corridor
Area Pianning'Au'thori.ty .
M.S.Buiiding " _ " T 2 2 "
Bangalore-560 001
'- V ...Petitioner
(By Sri.'é§.VHirif,ffc1ni"1~f:'1_, Adv}
1 .' The state offiarnataka
.,Re_presented by the Principal Secretary
'To Governinent
«.l}'rba,n Development Department.
.X('_ik'a.Sa 'Soudha
Bangalore-560 O0 1
....'.l"he Director of Town Country Planning
1VI.S.Buiidi.ng
Bangalore-560 O0 1.
. . . Respondents
(By Smt.Sheeia Krishna. AGA)
'i'his Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
records and issue a writ of eertiorari and quash the
order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Applic4atiox1V.._
No.6725/98 dated 20.10.09 Vide Ar1n--A.
This petition coming on for D'
this day, N Kumar J., passed the fo.ll0\_m'ng: " 4'
ORDER
The petitioner has prg;r§p1.,.3dt1n-5
challenging the order. passed. -. _ the it ‘ Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal to as the
‘KAT’ for interfere with
the ,./the Disciplinary
Authority for ‘prjoxteéd.fiis(:onduct.
_ The v_:VpetiitionelI”‘. is Working as Assistant
‘D ‘Flanning. He also functioned as a
Town Planning in Raichur Urban
DeV~elop_rn-enltlAuthority (RUDA) from 1988 to 1991.
palsofl-held regular charge of the post of Assistant
a._l’D_Virce’tor of Town Planning, Raichur District during
it “‘1€§89~l99l. Based on the inspection report of the
Deputy Commissioner/ Chairman of the Raichur
Urban Development Authority, disciplinary
L//’
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
under K.C.S. [CCA) Rules, 1957. Thirty three charges
were framed against the petitioner. The
denied the charges. An enquiry Officer T’
and an enquiry was conducted. J
submitted a report holding that charge– Nos..?i5′;. ‘an;:1* ll
33 were fully proved and char’ge_llpVl\Ios.3V,l pwere
partly proved and Vx3}e1?e not
proved. After issuing notice and
aft” I”€C€iV_iI1s the
Discipl:’gnlary’i*A. the report and
imposeclutheplpenaltyl’ol:lA”»vjg.thholding of two annual
increments ‘cumulative effect.
it order of the Disciplinary Authority
_ was”‘«cha.:llenl:gl’ed by the petitioner before the Karnataka
.l_uAdrninistrative Tribunal (KAT) in application
j__ll\Eo.”i5lO2/1994 contending that the domestic enquiry
~ “conducted was not fair and proper, no evidence was
recorded, no opportunity was given to him to prove
his case and the Enquiry Officer could not have relied
V.
cause notice, there was an obligation cast on the
Disciplinary Authority to enclose with it the
report so that the delinquent could send .
reply to the second show cause notice. Aslit”
done, the order of imposing punishrneg’ntV::,c_’
and the matter was re.rr1’a,rided’-
Disciplinary Authority, yvith a,—dVi’:’e_c’tion the
enquiry report, give cause
notice and After
remand, furnished to
the hivslldvetailed objections to
the said he also sent his reply to
the second shows-caulse notice.
On consideration of the said reply, the
..:AL{thority was of the View that there was
no.__uwjustification to interfere with the finding of
misconduct recorded by the Enquiry Officer as it was
on legal evidence. In fact, the fact that there
.._.v%vas delay in disposal of files and delay in issuing of
certificate was admitted.
6
6. The defence sought to be made out by the
petitioner was that he did not have sufficient staff ajndg
his subordinates were not assisting and he..~was..\_in’.j’
additional charge and therefore when is if
taken against the subordinate ..
have been found guilty of
said argument did not .faVour’._ll:l_ the
Disciplinary AuthorityA”«-turd overruled the
same. The Authorityppassiedv ‘the yerylsarne order of
withhcldirig cumulative effect
as punishment misconduct. Aggrieved
by sgarne’, ._t:vhe-.peti’tio’rier again preferred an appeal
llbefore the on appreciation of the entire
held that no case is made out for
inte«rfererice?’ fwith the order of the Disciplinary
fliuthority and therefore it dismissed the said
‘application. Against the said order of KAT, the
“petitioner is before this Court.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while
assailing the impugned order, contends that
Disciplinary Authority was in total error in .
the report, as the finding recordedby
Officer was not based on legal
absence of any evidence he nothave_b’ee’n;found
guilty. The KAT did…’notp..i’pi’operl3?_ appreciavte the
matter and therefore, of the
8V.Hll\f/le’d:o_not§_Vsee”ariy iiiérit” in this petition. His
attack to the grounds of violation of
principles justice, not following the
f””‘procedti.re'”and thlemffinding being based on no legal
1 .V:vras.’.i*’negatived by the KAT in the earlier
round ,.__’aiid:”” the said order has become final. The
rna_tter*’had been remanded back only on the ground
“‘of”non-furnishing of the report. Once the report was
“furnished, then he offered his explanation and the
Disciplinary Authority did not accept the explanation
and proceeded to uphold the finding of misconduct
Ll/..
and imposed the penalty. It cannot be said that it
committed any irregularity.
9. In that View of the matte.re*when
has taken pains to look into
record as well as the on and
recorded a finding that._no ‘ca’se”e_:for”*interference with
the punishment irnooseiycitt out by the
petitioner, we not to interfere
with the of law is involved
in th1s;t;’§eVti*:ietrf;:
, ePetition..etarids”‘dié}rnissed.
Sd/~
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/m