Sri.M.Bommaiah S/O Late Madaiah vs The Addl.Commissioner Of Police on 25 May, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.M.Bommaiah S/O Late Madaiah vs The Addl.Commissioner Of Police on 25 May, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

IN THE HIGH coum op KARNATAXA   V'

DATED THIS THE 25th lfrAY?()F MI£'Y 

Pmgsgm  

THE HON'BLE MR, 123:). D%11§A.f<ARAN,#¢HzEF .;€;sr1cE

. % .BANGALORE' 563023.

THE HONBLE-!££i§?.g;¥U£%'If£Cl§.1?.§§iS;§BHAHIT
   2009

'Sféi;rv:.:i.=ior.éMA@1  'éH. "

is/0 LATE %_ % %

c_/ 0 4NARAma:A    
m:2...:314, MA<3rAi)_I Roan

PQLLQE 'COLONY . 

 PETFFIOHER

 -  _  M. 3 cm ANV""I)l§A cuooitm, ADVOCATE. )

Ti§E'V}°§«E)f)L.COMMISSI0NER

 O'? PGLICE (ADMN)

..1NI§ANTRY ROAD
BﬁN(3'rALORE

 DIRECTOR GENERAL Arm

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE O2



3 THE STATE 0? KARNATAKAW, 
REP BYFISSECRETARY   ..  -:'   '  ;
DEPARTMENT OF HOME asfr1:LésNsPo2?r~   
(POLICE SERVICES)    _ " "
VIDHANA souom   V * _  
BANGALORE 01 nREsPcm_£3ENTs',

(By Sri:B.VEERAPPA,;--:C}A.  » };f  1
THIS wms FIILED'PRA.1;*}1'?G_:%?'€1VA'_Q(iASH THE ORDER

DT. 13.3.1999 RESPONTDENT NCL1 VIDE
ANNEX-B THE: 'ORDER   PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT   'ANNEX4I5'A1'\'fD THE ORDER 13?'.

24.10.2008" P.(§SS.E;D"!N--.A._APPi;§(3EA'I'ION N0. 767/2064 ON THE FILE V"ADh/HNSTTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGA1,QR:3.V%v31:x:3; ANN EX~.}.' up for ' ' Healing on thishtiay, SABH;ﬂ_ ﬁﬂ" the f \"bnnsn 'peﬁtion is ﬁled by the applicant in .:.I:\:!of;'?67/2004 on the ﬁle of Kamataka Azin: *m1s'A "Tribunal (herc1naft1:' 1' called 'the '!'ribunal)- Wieved by the order dated 24.20.2003 " 'A ' 'I'ribunal has dismissed than applicaﬁon ﬂied by :§e% jictitilozzer.

2. Application No.7'67]2004 was 1. herein before the Tribunal dated 11.3.1999 passed by ,ﬁ1o%_. .' dated 22.5.2002 passed by ﬁbihary and iilegal. It is th¢'thai§gp;$1imat was Working as subdnspectgf Soudha Police Station, against him on the 'Vlic was Eund to have to Show omcial La' Chargesheet was ﬁled and applicant trvig'=;d i:;"§ssions case No.48[95 before the , for the offence under Sacha' :1 7 1 -rlw. Seéﬂon 13(2) of the Prevention of 3.988 and was sentenced to unclcrngo simpk:

imgixisimxiiént for one yam on each count and a me at' 2 » 'Rs...1«,eéo1- in default to undergo sxmpic ilnprimsnmcnt for Z "§1iié Amonth. On the basis of the said conviction, dcmrtmcnta} V' V' "enquiry was held and show cause noﬁce was issued as to why hc should not be impomd with Inga' penalty. The \/3» applicant replied to the said notice _ challenged the order of special court in the ..

inquiry may not he proceeded.

The appeal pmfened by the V.-'5L?PﬁC3'.fkt B¢f0IE,V \' dismissed by judwent the Disciplmaxy' aumoxitgigragssz by e1Viier dated 11.3.99 passed the onici' applicant fmm service. HoWc;'ee§;f';;. the applicant on last applicant later ﬁled challenging the order of the _ﬁespe1sdeL1i'a;id the appeal was dismissed' e' and 'b3r_____t3:ae said oniers, Application 767/2004 A the Tribunal contending that the oxder of H served upon aﬁer he ret:mcd' from service' 'V it has become 12:' ﬁuctuous and 9%' & appﬁeeixt had already paid the fine amount, no penalty couki upon him and the order of dismfnsal is tiispmportionate to the proved misconduct. The '3'n'buna1 after considering the contention of the counsel appeariw V"

for the appiicazit and the learned that thtze was no merit in the Vqqntentirziri' in " 2 applicaﬁon and order of applicant was in service 2 ;

application. Being aggncw ed byiiiésald. dﬁdf Tribunal dated 24.10.2003, agg:sm:;g 5e§m%"«mc Tribunal has preferred 1 .' 'V

3. appearing for the Governmént Advocate appcaﬁnﬁ' {gr

45.: iearnﬁ appcanh g for the pet1m" ncr {he order of dismissal was served upon me he reﬁmd ﬁom, service at 5.33pm on 31.5.99 and" the same had become inftuctuous and was V' :~ " to be set asﬁc. The learnw counsel further submitted' At!£lat"f5V€11 if the charg had been proved, tht: plmiahment of V imposed upon the pctititmer was dis m to the proved misconduct and therefore, the Tribunal ought K' \/?"

to have allowed tht appiioation and set dismissal impugned in the appIicat_iaen,__' A M _v ' 'V 2

5. On the other hand, asubmitted that order of disxreisaag} = applicant before he retired reasons have been given by A; H the said ﬁnding and VAt»fV::i:.jt"V%3uﬁ'er fmm any error or meg" " in ﬁns' writ' petitidig. '- '

6. uxV.!_;%=-.% -hV: av¢ careful considcranom to the v of kiaraed counsel appearing for the parties ' ma§e1'ial on record.

ﬁzatcﬁal on moon! would clearly show that the tried for the change of having ccmmittod the VA " %)ﬁ'énce$ punishabke under Sections ? and 13(I)(d) I'/'W. Z 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrupﬁon Act, 1988 in V' w C(3.No.48/95 on the ﬁle of Spcciai Judge, ﬂgalom, for ;"\ \,>* receiving illegal graﬁﬁcation for showing oﬁial favour'-xvhile he was serving as sub--In.spcctor of Police in Police Station, Bangalore. The fact that the said. case was proved and applicant. ft} x undergo imprisonment for one on oottnﬁg pay ﬁne of Rs.1,0G0/- in for one month is not i;;dispu:m.V'.ii.isv hot. that the sand' order of e::i.1:__j§(aA:.5u by this therefore, the fact that "was received nlley' i gr'at3ﬁca' tion whj1c_diso11argingVI1io*-giittios on 28.11.93 to show an omcial '~ _ and the only contention urged beﬁme ih.e'VTri1§j1.-§a1:::'and before this court is that the order of upon the petiﬂsncr after he: reared' on 31.5.99 on attaining the age of x V' » nation and themioro, the order of { ' has Akoepoome infruotuous and even otherwise, the penalty of V' from sezvice is dispmpormnatac to the §IOV'6d misconduct It is ckar from the material on record that the K' xv?' that that pejitilonevapplicant was... s¢:1ve«:1" A dismissal while he was in ac1v1<:e' : it office on attaining the proved and the Tribunal has to how a futik: effort was 'oontendﬁmg that order of dismissal was isczfcd he retired ﬁmn service and a diﬂemnt View in the proved misconduct of the gratiﬁcation for showing omcial his duties as subinspector of M5 cf' cannot at an be said to be proved misconduct and the '_ Iﬁpt such to shock the console' us ofth1s' court td is}; lament and therefore, the ercier passed by the the application of the petitioner to set k%l¢%%as;aa%%.me order of am' issai mm agm' at him is jusmsw ' a 1;1d does not suﬂiar ﬂora any error or illegality as to wk ibr '4 interference in exercise' of writ ]unsd' ' iction of tbs' court. Aocoltiingly, we hold that then'-: is no merit .. _ and pass the following order:

The writpetiﬁonis    1   A
 "    
 «.f_Chi;ef fi'1:.s€:ice
       Iudqe

% index: vss;nag %

Web H<;:3t:'Yés/ No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court