Karnataka High Court
Bill Forge Private Limited vs Mr C M Rangaswamy on 11 July, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
that the dismissal frern service was an extreme penalty and accordingly, exercised discretion under See.1v}5~{€§"»sf the ID Aei, ':0 interfere with the order of disn1isse1'_~ Inedify the same to one ef reinstateynent "
one annual increment without ei;mu13.J§i\fe,.effeetfezj eriod of one ear, bv the awsrdim udned. .: ex . _ . .
2. Although leefned the"'p"etiti0ner contends that the resp§sn'den{'_ tn establish the defense «.fQ_fi7ha1f an hour on account ef ._i1I;i:%:_:e»ss tie.,_ "§é:;njs,'ev~~-in<j»:inn, the misconduct being graveh'*"._§ndisVe1phn_e deserved punishment of dismissalfintn 'Vse:<i.§ir:be';--«.__I" 'em not impressed by that submission! _L§ahQnr 'Court having regard to the era} and deeurnentary, inafshaled in the and keeping in mind that the act ef 1:nis¥::::>n:h:ev':"V'es:":1rni':te=:I; fer {he first time in the eareer nf respenfieni spanning 5 years and the remerse hhextnfessed by mm in {he ieéiier eh, szsgzeee ~» E;><:.Ev§23, 5 coupled with the fact that there were no extenuating eireumstaneee in the past, opined that the punishre'e.fht._v of dismissal wee not warranted $619 .,'§7€?3S"' eemmensurate with the provett». .::1is<:eh'ei"ué§jt hcthgl therefore interfered with the order ? impc-Se a lesser punishmentef withhé1d_i:1gV ene".._§i'1'1r;tia1 increment, in exercise 05 eXtraerdi'1:.zif§z_ (iisefeti.on':under See. 1 LA of the ID Act.
3. 'Fheitgh::1it'tieeafff1eCi 'Ce1;3:1.Se1"'fe:" the petitioner places reliance the. e1eLis:i'eh i;"1vBHARAT FORGE Co. LTD. Vs} ___'N'AKA'r1l, that judgment, on faete, haehe eay so because the facts of that eggiehe was e'fe. h'e1;§{:r Working in the first shift when aeieep on an iren plate at the piece ef teeth".-._Vt«diee'i'fp§ie:e;1{y proceedings were heid and found
-Vguiltgf' ef"--Vh§.§'eeenduet and taking ieie aeceunt his past :e::isee::1dt;iet; Vifhéiicfi miner punishments were impesedg teihhen erder ef dimieeeé. The Ape}; (ietgrt having :fejeeied.§' * noticed the said facts, coupled with the Conduct of the workman during the demesiic inquiry proceedihge, opined that the quantum of punishment of cannot be said to be disproportionate of misconduct.
4. As noticed supra,' }§reee'12.{'pest I'€C{)I'd of services of pe'tifi§.;ee;; 'dees :iC>'f; 'disclose extenuating eircumstaneiee figtnishmexlt of dismissal for Vfiroved. The reasons, eizd Varrived at by the _ dc» not call for interferefmel _ ' ' in the V resu1'i, Writ petiiion devoid of merit, is fiiggé yggfigi . » V' '"'* ;>,Tai;<>:"=;:e :3; :3; "533