Liv!-1 LUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA V
DATED THIS m1; 21st DAY OF oc'ro3g*+1V§:--.i2oos % O 1
BEFORE;"
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A..::T J.GImJA:;
WRIT PETITION N{3.1O2°2V?u:27:[2{5O*?'f(SViI).'§;$)
Between: VA
S1:'i.VeerannaJoiad, '
S / o.Devanaga§2§3'a._VJo1a¢1, 1.
Aged about - V
Occ:
{Store Kc(:pser}.K;U.: "
D.B., S};1Vb--IO:)'iv.i.$i{)n,1"}V ' _ _
I~IuH1na'bad., 'D.ist2:i:<:t_' 'Bid'a.;j.' *--- ._ ' - . . . PETFIONER
(By §3'f*i_gG;VCifi§gas:f1etti,
. _ Sri§i"?,R.Biradar,f Advs.)
OO1.*mjs..ta:e bjmamataka,
"By*its Secretary to Government
Dtzparfm-ezit of Urban Development
M.s..Bu;1dmg, Ba:{1ga1ore--560 GO 1.
MaI1a.g'ng {)i,1*ect0r,
._ Urban Water
Supply and Drainage Bsard,
" - 'Jalabhavasrx, Bannerghatta Road,
BTM Layout, 15* Stage,
Eangalore.
Mil
. »..,~..-mu ur mnmxwunlsn Niki?! OF KARNATAKA FHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
-2-
3. The Executive Engineer,
K.U.W.S. 85 D.B.,
Division Ofiioe, Guibarga,
District Gulbarga.
(By SI'i.S.S.KummaI1, AGA,
SI'i.H.(3.Shivaramu, Adv. Vfor» R2 &"R3)f_q '
This writ: petition is filed mieermcieg 322:3
227 of the Constitution of I1":L(_ii£}__WitI"1'a prayer
the order dated 27. 12.2004 'tiy R2 vide
Axmexme 'J' and order dated V3._I:.'Q5;2Q05 passedviby the
R1 vide Axmexure ']\€_"~-and' orde: e'd':3.ted 30.11.2006
passed by the R2 vide A'm3exu1fei-.'N " _
This w1'it4_';)etitio1'i""eV§;;;r;v_;"nA gjakioiri preltmmary' '
hearing in "this""day,V'i:he..._€3ourt made the
following: o " O
'E'he"pe4ti?éoi1ei4 the impugneci orders
V passegi "by tiie" Authority as Well as the
f«Ai::£i:ie1oI'ity terminating his services on the
game o:li1iis--:§:snduct.
2." matter arises in the following manner:
a the relevant point of time, the petitioner was
as Second Division Assistant in the
-erespondent-Boa1'd. The 31*' respondent, pursuant to his
letter dated 10*-*3 May 2002 addressed to the 2″
EH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO_UR1_§’ OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGR COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
mis-conduct cemmitted by the peiiitioner, accepted the
Eriquiry Report and has terminated the services of the
petitioner. It appears questioniiig the penalty ”
the petitioner filed an appeal to the 18′
lat respondent has conferred T_
the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, tI1is’petiti0fLVV.. it it;
4. Mr.i.R.Birada1f,.– _ieamedVVV:..e:o1j13sel i épepearfng for
the petitioner submits of the
Disciplinary Aigtticifity setaaside on the
ground of ” natural justice. He
was at as on the date
and he liifaiiteti ievidence, it was denied to
him. Hence} _ ‘enti_re””‘iproeeedi11gs cuiminating in
&iSfl»;fiee21i”v .. He further submits that the
is dis–pmportionate to the 11118»
conti:_.1_et. _.~i*it_3A4§’E'{A}iVI’t.§1(f:}C’ submits that the evidence does not
” ” -Teiseloee that the misconduct is gmved.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
‘4″Vvsii’bmissione ef the learned cezmsei appeaxing for the
parties.
an a uuuni ur I\nrmIAIAIu~\ MIG!-1 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA §”IlG|-E COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
6. The scope of judicial review by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
and again stated that is very limited _
unless it is pointed out that th(‘:.IJ'{;M the ” ” ‘V
principles of natural justice {lies 7-I:
provision has not been CoII1p”lii(f4:£;1.,.VtI}i;s’
anti upset the order not othioiwisef The Court
in the case of R.s.saimfi_o egg. is P} ab and
other ruied that
What is essexitieiw :iefvi(3.ence to prove the
gziit. It
‘Before first contention of
the agfipeilsmi’ want of material to
establish theV””cha1V*s?€, and of non-application
_ :?iind,.._Lve teiiiiihave to bear in mind the
V Court while exercising wry}
” . not reverse a finding of the
“enq:g&i:zg ctuthority an the ground that the
.. VoLevic£e’nce adduced before it is insufizcient. 0°
r is some evidence to reasonabiy
support the conclusion of the enquinlng
authority, it is not the fimction of the Cour:
to review the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent finding. The enquiring
an COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HG!-I COl}R7f OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH CO
authority S the solejuclge of the fact so long
as there is some legal evidence to
substantiate the finding and the
or reiiability of the evidence is not a matten. f ”
which can be permitted to be
before the Court in writ proceedings. “” VV ‘
7. In fact it is to be noticed that 1:11;; prc§efAfeq*nire’dVeV ‘
in a domestic enquiry is prefi2:.:T1Tciero1.1s”‘
and not proof beyond vfeasonee:1e:ve*: fieepieg this
principle in mind,’ one e§eetei:§e’–~whether the
contenfion of denied an
opportunity V. and the enquiry
report cf that.
8. It 1;VhatO’w}*1e–1i the matter Was set down for
-“‘~e:fzqt1if_*§!, Ofiieer as well as the
V’deii:iq11ei1tfs 2 were present. One more Witness on
be.11a_].OfOof ‘ifilanagement was examined ae P.W.5 and
‘E;-LP6 marked. The Presenting Officer Ciosed his
Both the deiinquents were questioned as to
K they propose to do. Both of them sought time.
.4’:.”}’hey were akso asked to report on the next date if, they
have any defence. The matter was adjeumed to
JI
. -..vu-u vr AAKNMIAIU-1 NEG!-I OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H!GH CO
-10-
Annexure ‘J’ would disclose that the entire evidence and
the reply has been considered by the Discipiiqaxy
Authority alzd they haci no option but to _
penalty of dismissal.
11. This takes us to the
Whether the penalty i}iI}pGS6d.eiS4_’COIfiH’1VE§i3.S1}I”E§t’§T3 V.
misdemeanor committed by is no
doubt; true that the is» azieereetble to
judicial review ashas Apex Court
in the Case 91: oflndia and
others : But however,
there isiaa would be that it should
certainiy of the Court to hold that
the iséinot ccmnmensurate and must be
V. Court akso in case of Blue Ram
V/’e’;”%se¢:te*%’a,€ Pr-ads}: reported in AIR 1983
gsc 4S4, hem as under:
equally true that the penalty imposed
‘fliust be e with the gravity of
I the misconduct and that any penalty
disproportionate to the gravity of the
x K’
§:«;>
an MUUKE Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COIJRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
-11..
misconduct wouzd be violative of Article 14
cf the Constitution ‘
12. Having regard to the misdemeanor _
by the petitioner inasmuch as when he _
with the respondent, he was responsibéie it ”
of the material, which went missing. if
review is permissible if it Giexereetist
some fallacy in the decision andinot in
the decision itself. I do is any faflacy
in the decisior3.VV’heiitever, what is
significant is certainly
dispmpoifionate {:3 ‘she Consequently,
the disoiissal’ to. be altered to one of
comp1il_soI3tV’}§ef1ce, the following order:
‘¢ifi’euaed in part
recorded by the authorities
V mis-conduct stands confirmed.
.. __.(e}..’Tf1e penalty of dismissal is altered to one of
compulsory refirement.
o’
Q/7.”
my I-u\.I\JI\I vr xv-\nw.mAI\A rslu-H OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
-33-
(d) If any benefit flows from compuisory
retirement, the petitioner shall be entitied for
the same.
13. Mr.S.S.Kumman, xeamed ”
Government Advocate appearing for T(3Sp0I)g{1(iffI–§:i. is’ O
permitted to file memo of appeararrgee O_
judge
SP8