High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S B Lakshmeshwar Rao vs Hubli Dharwad Municipal … on 23 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S B Lakshmeshwar Rao vs Hubli Dharwad Municipal … on 23 March, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Malimath
WA N0943 Of 20§$
: E :
EN THE: HEGH scum or KARNATAKA  
CIRCUZT BENCH AT EJHARWAD  V

EDATELD THIS mg: 223% z:>;:§i.,£;:_:~f M£g§eL:'§{i':gv:>i5%§    1'

PRESE§Tgl 'i' 

THE ;~£c_>N*B:,E: n;iR.Ju:§*r«:.§:E i%:.-§g.'1séA:s:L;;'}'r;z;§§'If::& VV 
Tm; HONBLE  :':::sg$3i'.{§AAL::;.a$LTH

WRIT APPEAfL i'§0. §}4:12€)~0'8'~i.§5k:éEs)

BETWEEN:    

Sri S. LaksVhxneS'i;:.;x2_a1'*». Rag;
Age: 59 yea1'S,5.*{}cc:' I.R£:tii%:<i_,

A. E. E. 1-R] 0 'Opgjr' 'E}§St1'§§3ii' -f[§',{')":;11*ln,'
P.B.RO8.'d, f;'9haI'"a£V3fé1'€'};..j v.    ...APPELrLAP-IT

{By 5;; Vig4i1»::$hwa.raAS..$¥iésu§, Advocate}

1" I Q   Municpal

' V 'CorpQ'13:£fi¢J'n,
i;.«ami:n&r,

A V _" Siam of kiaxnaiaka,

V "rep. By its Secmtary,

 Department of Urban Development,

' M.S.Buildi.ng, Bangalore H 550 001. ...RESPOI'$DEN'I'S

(By Smt. Sharmila M.Pat;i, Advocate for R1
Sslxxi I{.B.Adyapak, Acidl. Gfivt. Advcmaie far R2)



WA N0943 of 'E008
: 2 :

'¥'h.is writ appea} is filed under Section 4_;»g>T:t'-._ th_5:

Kamiataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set....a_$ici €a. V.
order dated {}?.(}2.2€)(}8 passed in W.P.No. 1 1 181/-'_20():3=__    ' _

This Wm': appeal coming on {pr oztltérsv'--- "v--.xgfi3,h" 
Misc.W.6G549/2009 63 Misc.W.6£)55Uv,'.2009,.   'd;ay,'g

Manjunath, J, delivered the followiixg: _
J U D C3142 N'? 
Heard the learned counsr:I'vL'ii>1'";'L':1;f:  
2. There is a of  the appeal.

Before condoxzingathe  we mqussted

the 1{'2$T'i}'I1C£i" 1  _' the -- appellant. to address the
argumexiitjs on  ta ascertain whether there is;

any merit "fI:_:fVis "Accordingly, learned 00111136} ibr

  h}::s" "" 'éafltidrcsseé the arguments. Learned

 _fi{§i}4VC,i_}iV1§§i€¥i:1V.*&3l 'G£i§l?fifI},f£'3i1€11'£. Advocate: is also heard. in the matter

whs is agggéeéiriiig far ra$p0ml;€:1.t n.0.2¥

 Sharmila M.PatiL learzmd czzsuxmel undertakes

 fi1§.'vakaiat11 for respondent 110.1

4. The appeflant was apggoiilteci as a Work Inspector

under the 1%’ mspom;ie1:;,t.. ‘l’11ereafi€:r, he was promoted as

WA NE}.943 of 2008

Junior Engineer and retired as an A3sista11§.. f3;§ééLi;tiVe.

Engineer. Before his retirement, charge shee’i.__2wasV..iSsi1e{i V’

fmxaing seven charges agaiI1st;~”‘f}1c«. a:;3p¢.l1.:§;t1vt._

Subsequently, tha appellant sent a the

levelleci against him” Th€§1″%35§f$§:1″, irI3.;_=, ‘ ui*1%’;E’§i'[3()Ii:(1€I1t’V’

appoinkzd. an Enquiry ;.(:)fi’1Ct’3I:,-£’.;’*LgIi”‘.{“fif1f1}13:I:§?; {was 1:}.-inlpletad,
and subsequently, p€fi:zi};éf–sxfaf_-_;V revefiing the
appelfiant from flat: post iigwork inspector
a11d.t3’eaiiI1g4.1£§{–;:; §e%3}ze¢{;ije’i;dé;”i994 to 31.12.1994
as 1eav§:__ was chailenged by the
appeflfigt in W.P.No.3’?940/1999,
which to Sfiptetmber IQQQ directing

th.e_1§éSpQnc1enf to} hold a fresh enquiry in accorciance

‘V giving reascsnabk-2 oppartunity to the pfititioner.

i:E1a9ci1*c1;mstanccs, fresh ez1q1:iry was cc:11du<t:ted..

Afi"fl1;:::)i'fic§u:<::ti:1g the fresh enquiry, resgondent 3:30. 1 came ta

»t1AA:éLcs;:-;1cVI'11sion that the agpeflant by obtaining an irrevccahle

of attamey {mm $ri B.N.'I'ikare demolished ma

"'§mpen;g; baaxing m:..2?2; 1A1, 270/BI, :Z'?(}/B2 and :2?'0/<3

situated. :31: {)ha1Wa.d and censtmxcteé a comznfircial compiex

§~'

WA $30943 0172003
: 4 :

thereon, and lei: out the same tea the tenants by acrfépfing

advances and rent, and flxrther 318151 that the a;3;:.~’st137a:;’_1 t’i;%7fi:,%.«

unauthorisadiy absent from 01.091994 .35″-..V:Q8i.V’_[;.i}1994_ V’

without prior sancticn of ieave. Tha j’pi:ti1;io1f:€’r– ({Vit:1fii.¢¥:l”‘tl1£%«

Charges ievfilied against Si;if1r:t: ‘.§:§.t1e

satisfactory, the disciplinary “-vL.L,a”utho:ity– . imtiatea: ‘”énqu:ry- ”

pmctaedixzgs. Thfireafter-; enqiliiff’ w%is”s’L1bfi1ittad. on
22.12.2006 by the that the charges
levelleti ageing: 1:” The disciplmaly
authority _}’:’:’i:}gx’.VV1?.1}R.I’_j,7 Officar, passfid
the Qiéicz’ {if two incmmants and treating
tha periofi’ (éf wiihout wages and the period

of s.1}:s;3e”£1si0n 33..,I€3V€ due to his credit.

‘ V’ * 6: ;»’~\.gg;«’iét:=,§¢d by the order of punishment, the appefiant

H ‘:V$§)pé§%§V’Vb&f0m the: Siam, which appeai came :0 he

dis§~1i$§é§ 5%: 1m1.:20«:::2, Thereaftrar, the appeiiant {ism Writ

p§;’Ei*§§Zo1v1 ” in W.P.Ns:).31 181/ZZQOS. The lcarngd. single Judge

hearing the parties, relfing upon R1216 236-5!) cf the

“”I{am1ataka Civil Services (Conduct) Ruiw, 1966, held; that

the 6fi€§11iI’§=” was pmpar and upheld the order Sf punighment.

fix

WA N0943 of 2008

U3

Accortlingly, writ petiticsn was éismissed. (3haIjg:::1gi;ti§”»TtV}’1z=.

same; the present appaai is fffleci.

7. Mr. Shasfxy, counsel appleazfilag.jib}?.{i1g锑-a§:)3f§t:11a:}f,.«

cozatends that 3}} the: authoIiti€s_.i31c1iid_iiig th€;i ;

Jzldga did 110: censicisr that, the (fiéiicer, the
rttspondent no.1 did’ «$16 had
received any belggfit f.’I'(13I’11’VAAa’;*}f;”.§:V:b._i”.’%VII)\?§’9,,1~ sf atioriley
holder. There”fgE>iii;;jT.L ii¢: passed by the
learned Vthe dismissal {if his
revisi{;«%1″ the <2-rder passed by the

d,iscip1iij:a;3z" au{h§fli:}?. "':«:i' be quashed.

'8;'*Havi1nigV–.fi¢VaJd_ the Counsel for the parties, We are of

» _Opi£i{1§C§11:t'}1E§t the leaxned single: Judge has not ccummittfié

" to interfare with the order, for the

foiiirwizig rzgzdiisons:

Admitted};-*, the appellaiit is not disputing the.

ébtainment of irrevocable power sf attcarney from Sri

B.N,’f’il<are, who is a permanrsnt residcrnt of Dharvead. Power

sf attorney obtamed from Sri B.N."f'ikare fiisclases that it is

6'

WA NO943 of 2608

an irrrevocable power of atmrmay. Theretfom, it isW¢3e:§§i1'–'4:t}1V'a'?

the oflicer of the 15* mspomient, by 0bta2'13i1I§ M

power 0f attorney, demolished the fsr(':sps:.Ifty

commercial <::0:;:;.p1ex and rented, i3ut v_t€)J tlfié

Coilectjng advances. This disCi@§§€isV thtst hximtuzt: Oif i1?:§fi'sa<§£ion "

between the appeiiant SI'iVA.y_.}:%.V:AI'§v,"I"]1.;.34{3.5_'~'lIfi…'Ef't§7IC as-.:g§)peIIant,
as 21 friend of Shari assisted Shri
B.N.'I'i_kare to putup co1j;s'£11:2<§1}i.<5:1,¢&.it_ appellant to
examine Sri of denyixig
the chargesi fiddifion to that, when,
Sr; Dhanvaxfi and when the
appeilani' there W33 no necessity.

for :9 (>hfai:}.V_V_:ii’i;ev0£*a?31e power of attorney to demolish

V*;:i1r:’: construct commetrcial complex thereen. In

A’iL3’16’«.¥;?3′.I’féZ’i}}’;.¥;f£s€’§.V1iEil’.1n§’;f€’:f:é’é, we do not SC?) any inf’1.rmit_}«* in the Grfier

Z pasA5€’-._€3 113}? ‘tE3;é” Enquiry Ofiiccr and 3139 £13 the order passed

the ..a;}f€3eI1ate auti10rity. The appeliant has not obtaixmd

;’£;1y.,_ jé.-tier permission Of this 15′ resp0n.de:.1t abnut the

transaction. In regard to the second. poixxt, viz, the

uxlauthorised absence is concemed, even though the

gig’.

WA N0.9=’¥8 of 2008
2 ? :

appeilant contcmis that he had sent the leave 1€i4te17vai§:7§._T1i1f:

same has Iltlii. been consicitzred, mans: senziiitrzg f?;:._3fiEi’§'{-3..:._i€1it§i:’_ .

W31} not be sxzfficiant. unless and u11tfim3:he 1ea§*é’i3.:§=an ;*:tie.ned

by the authority.

9. In the rc::s1111:§ theré fizzszit ‘V

Accordingiy, the appea} is disnagissftflg.

¥~?’mJ.r weeks time is’gi:L_$;11i§z:d’V1″i2iw1* v”i«€:23’i§I’z__1:=:d cmmsel for
the 1st 1~cs§o:1g1e.=,-zit Govemmeni
Aévocate to ” “me’rx1_1C§ m”_a’ppearance.

J -‘7_Q””

Sd/-u
Iudge

3d/-3′
Iudcjé

‘ ” ~ .