Karnataka High Court
Sri R A Puttaraju vs The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 15 November, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.26111/2012 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI R A PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE M.C.ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A KURNENAHALLY,
HARIHARAPURA POST-571426,
KASABA HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, M.S.BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP SOCIETIES
MYSORE REGION, MYSORE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
MYSORE.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP SOCIETIES
AND DEPARTMENTAL ARBITRATOR,
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MANDYA DISTRICT CENTRAL
2
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
MANDYA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP. FOR R1 TO 3
SRI. R S RAVI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 - KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ON 30.04.2012 IN
APPEAL NO.940/2007 AT ANNEX-T.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in Appeal No.940/2007 as at Annexure-T to the petition.
2. The petitioner herein was employed in the fourth respondent-Society. During the course of his employment, since it was noticed that the petitioner was not diligent in attending to his duties, action was initiated against the petitioner and he was kept under suspension pending enquiry. However, ultimately by the order dated 3 02.01.1999, the fourth respondent issued a warning to the petitioner to conduct himself appropriately in future. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had raised a dispute. The third respondent through the order dated 28.08.2007 was of the opinion that the fourth respondent-management was not justified in its conclusion and on setting aside the order impugned passed in the said dispute, also directed the fourth respondent to pay the salary for the period from 13.08.1997 to 10.04.1998 after deducting the subsistence allowance paid. The fourth respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal in Appeal No.940/2007 before the KAT. The KAT by its judgment dated 30.04.2012 has set aside the order passed by the third respondent dated 28.08.2007 and the resolution by which the fourth respondent had issued warning to the petitioner was upheld. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court. 4
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
4. In the light of the documents available along with the petition, two aspects arise for consideration. Firstly, the action initiated by the fourth respondent with regard to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and in that light, the censure order that was made. Secondly, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the KAT was justified in not considering the aspect relating to the payment of the remaining salary after deducting the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension even if the order impugned before the third respondent is ultimately upheld.
5. In the light of the above, a perusal of the order passed by the Management at Annexure-N would disclose that the Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter had arrived at the 5 conclusion that the manner in which the petitioner had conducted himself on 31.07.1997 and 01.08.1997 was not appropriate and had thereafter taken note of the proceedings in the enquiry and had arrived at the conclusion that it would be appropriate that a warning be issued to the petitioner not to commit such misconduct in future. Apart from the same, the Disciplinary Authority has not regulated the suspension period by denying the balance of the salary.
6. If that be the position, since the order of the Disciplinary Authority was only to the effect of issuing a warning and the petitioner has thereafter continued in service, the appropriate course was that the balance of the salary after deducting the payment of subsistence allowance was required to be paid to the petitioner. Keeping this aspect in view, if the order of the third respondent dated 28.08.2007 is taken note, no doubt the third respondent has adverted to in detail with regard to 6 the nature of enquiry that had been held and has arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry has not been held in accordance with law. However, considering the fact that the manner in which the petitioner had conducted on the two days as referred to in the proceedings cannot be disputed and ultimately all that the Disciplinary Authority has done is only to censure the petitioner, so that he shall not act in such manner in future. The view as taken by the third respondent insofar as that aspect of the matter would not be justified. In any event, the order of the third respondent to direct payment of the amount for the period he was under suspension that is from 13.08.1997 to 10.04.1998 was justified. In that light, the KAT while ultimately disposing of the appeal though was justified insofar as setting aside the order of the third respondent in interfering with the censure order issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the KAT was required to maintain 7 the order insofar as the direction issued for the period from 13.08.1997 to 10.04.1998.
7. Therefore, in that light, the judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed in Appeal No.940/2007 though upheld to the extent of setting aside the order dated 28.08.2007, insofar as the Resolution dated 02.01.1999 is not interfered. The same stands modified to hold that the order passed by the third respondent directing payment for the period from 13.08.1997 to 10.04.1998 is maintained and the fourth respondent shall calculate and pay the same to the petitioner. Such payment shall be made within eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms